On 27/05/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
How? Previous public Wikimedia meetings have led nowhere and done nothing other than highlight how few people in the communities are interested in _doing_ anything - as opposed to debating on mailing lists.
I apologise if i came across preachy or whiney or anything and i appreciate being on the board can't be easy what with constant howls of cabals and whatnot by the tinfoil hat brigade. What i am perhaps getting at here is asking if anyone knows/cares if the majority of wikimedians agree (or even know about) the current direction being taken by the foundation. That is making the foundation more than a body who provides servers, bandwidth, developer support, and deals with legal issues arising from writing the world's biggest and best encyclopedia, dictionary, source of free books, news, and open content repository (did i miss any?).
Tim Starling has said before (and i apologise if i am misquoting him) that we basicly got lucky with the idea of a wiki encylopedia and that we should really just stick to what we are good at. I have always disagreed with this point of view but lately have been coming around to it, because you know what what, the results of what the average wikimedian does have been hugely successful but other things we've tried or talked about trying just don't seem to live up to its success. I just don't think it is our role to deal with the problems of Africa and any of the other projects envisioned.
That is not to say that all the amazing idealism and good intentions constantly shown are a bad thing TM. I am just throwing this out there as an idea but perhaps we should have to separate but linked organisations. One non-profit organisation whose only charge is to own and buy servers/bandwidth, support devs and to provide the legal backing for wikimedia this would be as small and lean as possible (though would presumably hire at least one lawyer and accountant). The other would be a more traditional charity and would be charged with overseeing and sponsoring wikimania, getting grants for special projects and trying to get wikipedia on to mobile phones and all the other cool stuff people want to do. People would be able to choose to which of the organisations they would like to donate. Perhaps two organisations is too radical but perhaps some kind of internal breakdown of the foundation into core functions and non-core functions. I dunno. I'm just throwing this out there as an idea to start a conversation because I appreciate that although the foundation has worked hard to try to be inclusive, there are a large number of people (or at least i get the feeling that there are anyway) who feel like the foundation is going in a direction contrary to where they would like it to go.
Then again maybe i'm misinterpreting the wikimedian community (i only subsist in a very small bit of it) and everyone is quite happy with what the foundation is doing and where it is heading. I dunno.
paz y amor, -rjs.
Nice idea... how about you suggest how that might happen? There are currently two community representatives on the Board, though it's increasingly obvious that the community are not using either Anthere or myself to get anything to happen. Anything that does happen comes through private mailing lists and an increasing number of internal processes that even Board members don't always have access to.
Angela
Robin Shannon wrote:
I just don't think it is our role to deal with the problems of Africa and any of the other projects envisioned.
Could be a bit more clear about what projects you think are being envisioned which are not about our core mission? I ask, because I am unaware of any.
I'm just throwing this out there as an idea to start a conversation because I appreciate that although the foundation has worked hard to try to be inclusive, there are a large number of people (or at least i get the feeling that there are anyway) who feel like the foundation is going in a direction contrary to where they would like it to go.
Can you be more specific? Where do you think the foundation is heading, which is not driven forward primarily by the community?
As far as I can tell, we are doing exactly what we have always done, and have made no sharp breaks or shifts.
Perhaps this little discussion is misleading. Some members of the community, who are not board members, but who are of course highly respected community members, have been discussion possible new directions for the foundation which would apparently involve me moving to New York or DC (which isn't going to happen, by the way), and opening an office there.
At least two board members have pointed out that this is not likely, that there are no plans for the future of the foundation which would involve anything like that.
Before this conversation veers off into speculation, I would like to ask people to be please be very specific about specific things that you think the Foundation is doing or might be doing, that you think are inconsistent with our traditions and community values. I know of nothing, although of course we can discuss and quibble about details of how various things are organized, etc.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Perhaps this little discussion is misleading. Some members of the community, who are not board members, but who are of course highly respected community members, have been discussion possible new directions for the foundation which would apparently involve me moving to New York or DC (which isn't going to happen, by the way), and opening an office there.
Nobody has suggested that you or any other board member would need to move. Board members need not be in any Wikimedia office every day. The location of the main office (that is, the one where the executive director and most of the staff work) should be, IMO, dictated by where we can most easily maximize connections with like-minded organizations and with the relevant representatives of the nations we want to work with.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Perhaps this little discussion is misleading. Some members of the community, who are not board members, but who are of course highly respected community members, have been discussion possible new directions for the foundation which would apparently involve me moving to New York or DC (which isn't going to happen, by the way), and opening an office there.
Nobody has suggested that you or any other board member would need to move. Board members need not be in any Wikimedia office every day.
True. I am out of the current office many more days than I am in.
The location of the main office (that is, the one where the executive director and most of the staff work) should be, IMO, dictated by where we can most easily maximize connections with like-minded organizations and with the relevant representatives of the nations we want to work with.
Based on my personal experience and the kinds of things I envision the foundation doing going forward, I don't agree at the present time. It is possible that if we were to take a radical change of direction, this could make sense.
--Jimbo
On 5/26/06, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Nobody has suggested that you or any other board member would need to move. Board members need not be in any Wikimedia office every day. The location of the main office (that is, the one where the executive director and most of the staff work) should be, IMO, dictated by where we can most easily maximize connections with like-minded organizations and with the relevant representatives of the nations we want to work with.
Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to some subset of interesting orginizations... But being near a solid airport places us near all of them. This really is the way a lot of business is done today.
Whenever we have a critical mass of people in a spot we should consider opening an office, but lets not let the tail wag the dog. The increased cost of travel doesn't justify the cost of an additional office in a prime location and if the location is non-prime, what did you save on travel?
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to some subset of interesting orginizations... But being near a solid airport places us near all of them. This really is the way a lot of business is done today.
Whenever we have a critical mass of people in a spot we should consider opening an office, but lets not let the tail wag the dog. The increased cost of travel doesn't justify the cost of an additional office in a prime location and if the location is non-prime, what did you save on travel?
That is not the same at all. I live a 20 minute metro ride from the busiest airport in the world and that is not AT ALL the same as being a 20 minute metro ride to various contacts we would want to be in close communication with. There is added cost and time needed for air travel and that leads to fewer opportunities to meet. Proximity is very important.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to some subset of interesting orginizations... But being near a solid airport places us near all of them. This really is the way a lot of business is done today.
Whenever we have a critical mass of people in a spot we should consider opening an office, but lets not let the tail wag the dog. The increased cost of travel doesn't justify the cost of an additional office in a prime location and if the location is non-prime, what did you save on travel?
That is not the same at all. I live a 20 minute metro ride from the busiest airport in the world and that is not AT ALL the same as being a 20 minute metro ride to various contacts we would want to be in close communication with. There is added cost and time needed for air travel and that leads to fewer opportunities to meet. Proximity is very important.
Proximity for whom and to whom? We are an online organization with a global perspective. We depend on online communications. Wherever the headquarters happens to be will involve travel by some people if they want to meet in person. If all you're trying to do is improve meetup opportunities for the select few you just end up promoting the idea that Wikimedia is a much less broadly based organization than it really is.
Ec
On 5/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Proximity for whom and to whom? We are an online organization with a global perspective. We depend on online communications. Wherever the headquarters happens to be will involve travel by some people if they want to meet in person. If all you're trying to do is improve meetup opportunities for the select few you just end up promoting the idea that Wikimedia is a much less broadly based organization than it really is.
There's a limit to how much you can schmooze people online. Large donations and grants are going to require face time. Might as well position yourself to make arranging that easier, which means you want to be near a transportation hub. This means places like New York, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles. Hubs have more flights per day to more destinations, which usually means your total travel time is lower because your options are broader and you are less likely to have to use a connecting flight.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Proximity for whom and to whom? We are an online organization with a global perspective. We depend on online communications. Wherever the headquarters happens to be will involve travel by some people if they want to meet in person. If all you're trying to do is improve meetup opportunities for the select few you just end up promoting the idea that Wikimedia is a much less broadly based organization than it really is.
There's a limit to how much you can schmooze people online. Large donations and grants are going to require face time. Might as well position yourself to make arranging that easier, which means you want to be near a transportation hub. This means places like New York, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles. Hubs have more flights per day to more destinations, which usually means your total travel time is lower because your options are broader and you are less likely to have to use a connecting flight.
Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien, Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney, Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city these are out of the top of my head)
All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.
Waerth/Walter
On 5/31/06, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote: Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien, Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney, Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city these are out of the top of my head)
All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.
And all of them fail to meet the legal requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation to have its headquarters within the United States.
Thanks for playing.
Kelly
On 5/31/06, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien, Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney, Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city these are out of the top of my head)
All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.
There will be a Wikimedia office in Frankfurt (opening in October) - not the headquarter of the Wikimedia Foundation, but the office of Wikimedia Deutschland. And I hope that in a few years we will have offices in some of the other cities you mentioned as well. We should really go that way, instead of fighting about the best place for the one and only international headquarter ...
-- Arne (akl)
--- Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Geez very Americancentric.
The foundation is based in the U.S. Moving the corporation to another nation would require a complete restart of everything. Even moving the corporation between states could be complicated. Setting up offices anywhere we want while keeping the corporation where it is, would be fairly easy. Just a matter of expense vs what we would get from having offices in various places.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/26/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Being in NYC, DC, or varrious other locations would being us closer to some subset of interesting orginizations... But being near a solid airport places us near all of them. This really is the way a lot of business is done today.
I think this is a large reason why Park Ridge, Illinois is such a popular location for non-profits. Park Ridge is a $15 taxi fare from O'Hare, which alternates with Altanta for busiest airport in the U.S.), has good civic amenities (due to high taxes, which the non-profits largely avoid, being tax-exempt), and is also close to Rosemont, which has some really good convention facilities. Chicagoland is the third most popular convention destination in the United States, after Orlando and Las Vegas.
Caveat: I used to work for a non-profit located in Park Ridge.
An alternative Chicago office location would be at 310 S. Michigan, although I've no idea what it costs to live there. Still, there'd be some amusement value in sharing a mailing address with our leading competitor. Also has good proximity to the Equinix facility at McCormick Place, which is an excellent hosting facility, as well as the hosting facilities at CBOE (which I don't know as much about).
Really, though, what matters is who you need to be close to. And I don't really know who the Foundation needs to be close to, as I don't know who our big corporate and institutional donors are. I doubt many of them are in St. Petersburg, though.
Kelly
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Robin Shannon wrote:
I just don't think it is our role to deal with the problems of Africa and any of the other projects envisioned.
Could be a bit more clear about what projects you think are being envisioned which are not about our core mission? I ask, because I am unaware of any.
Our "core mission" is pretty broad, so probably most of the differencees of opinion are over what part of that mission we ought to be spending the most effort on.
I personally think that by far the most important part of our core mission should be to produce a Free (as in Freedom) compendium of human knowledge, and that there should be a core organization dedicated solely to that task with no other distracting/ancillary tasks.
That's not to say nothing else needs to get done, but it doesn't all need to be done by the *same* core organization. My main worry is that if there is one giant organization, and actually producing the encyclopedia becomes a focus of only a minority of its budget and paid staff, that will not improve its quality. It will also prevent Wikipedians from being able to pick and choose which other projects they support or don't support; instead they'll have to make one binary decision to "support Wikimedia" or not.
For example, if an African organization (preferably run by actual Africans, not Europeans and Americans) thought Wikipedia would be useful in some guise (perhaps CD-ROMs in schools; perhaps paper encyclopedias) and wanted to distribute it for that purpose, I would strongly support that, would donate to the organization, and would support acting on any reasonable requests for changes on the content-production end that would make their job easier.
That's not to say that it's impossible to have one organization do both or that any possible organization doing both would turn out horribly, but I think it's a worse arrangement and don't support it, which seems to me at least a reasonable opinion (of course, it's my claim, so I would think so).
In any case, that sort of thing is already happening to some extent with the German paper version, which I see as a positive sign.
-Mark
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Before this conversation veers off into speculation, I would like to ask people to be please be very specific about specific things that you think the Foundation is doing or might be doing, that you think are inconsistent with our traditions and community values. I know of nothing, although of course we can discuss and quibble about details of how various things are organized, etc.
--Jimbo
Specifically:
Stalling a firm go or nogo decision on Wikiversity after the proposal was supported by 200/300 voting community members.
Wikipedia.com built a community and converted to wikipedia.org on the basis of a firm mission statement attractive to people who dropped in and could find the URLs to the material again.
With a firm no from the board another nonprofit could quickly be organized and the wikiversity.org domain transferred.
With a firm yes successful critical mass should be just a few years of hard work away.
The policies of en.wikipedia.org evolved from active participation of an interested community of volunteers. They were not detailed in advance by a committee or rewritten for years (after a community vote to proceed) as per vague feedback from the stacked Board that the proposal just is not quite good enough to get started yet.
The Wikipedia community was also working within a dedicated stable set of URLs and contending only with their own deletionists, not other projects.
This is a substantial drift from the original community of volunteers and methods that created a successful wikipedia.org.
regards, lazyquasar
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org