[Foundation-l] Reply to Mark

Tue Feb 26 19:43:50 UTC 2008

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Florence,
> 
> I guess I wasn't clear with what I was saying, because what you're  
> describing is exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> The board meets this saturday. Hypothetically, they vote for Sue to  
> investigate. I was referring to the board announcing to this list that  
> they have voted for Sue to investigate. Obviously, such an  
> investigation would take time. Typically you or someone else makes an  
> announcement shortly after a board meeting as to what was discussed at  
> the board meeting. So hypothetically, the meeting is Sat. and then say  
> Wed. someone posts to this list what the results of that meeting were  
> (for everything, not just Wikimania, but all issues the board is going  
> to discuss this weekend).
> 
> Does that make more sense?

Yup :-)

ant

> -Dan
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> 
>> Meeting is saturday.
>> But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort
>> of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why.
>>
>> As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is  
>> the
>> role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the
>> difference to the community.
>>
>>
>> I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say
>> "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly
>> 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to
>> meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an
>> opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the  
>> fan
>> circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in  
>> the
>> educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in
>> various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost
>> free even for the WMF."
>>
>> Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her
>> job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and
>> probably that security of participants is taken care of.
>>
>> Right now, two situations may happen.
>> The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of
>> hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever...
>> Or the board might wonder if there might be problems.
>>
>> If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is  
>> for
>> the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given  
>> the
>> latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance
>> the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the
>> consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally,  
>> the
>> analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many
>> parties.
>>
>> Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide  
>> some
>> recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either
>> decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself,
>> or the board will take a decision *with* Sue.
>>
>> So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they  
>> consider
>> new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of
>> the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either  
>> dismiss
>> the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue.
>>
>> THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any
>> suggestion in 2-3 days.
>>
>> I'll forward this email to the board :-)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I thought about it, and given that at least Florence is aware of our
>>> concerns now, there's probably not a whole lot more to discuss about
>>> this until after the board meeting (or rather, after the board
>>> meeting's results are published/announced). My hope is that they will
>>> discuss it there, and it will address your final sentence ("IF and
>>> WHEN..."), and we can resume the discussion then more productively. I
>>> believe the board meeting is this weekend? So most likely we will see
>>> some sort of announcement during the week immediately subsequent.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>> On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this  
>>>> all
>>>> concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been  
>>>> pushed
>>>> aside is inappropriate at best.
>>>>
>>>> Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is
>>>> not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue,
>>>> people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for  
>>>> their
>>>> safety and address it in detail.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero <gattonero at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ray Saintonge
>>>>> <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we can just not go to Wikimania, or we can decide that the
>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>> for us outweigh the risks. It is a tough decision, but we will
>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> make it. And if we don't go this year, we can show up next  
>>>>>>> year, or
>>>>>>> the one after that.
>>>>>> Thank you for being realistic  At some point a decision has to be
>>>>>> made,
>>>>>> and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets.  We
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by
>>>>>> rear-guard actions.  The Toronto people could not have been very
>>>>>> happy
>>>>>> when Boston won with a late bid.  The Turin people were upset when
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> lost to Taipei.  I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but
>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>> going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania.
>>>>> Don't combine apples and oranges (we say so in Italy): don't reopen
>>>>> all the "other wikimanias" issues, it's better.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I'm sorry to read - again - that people complaining  
>>>>> about
>>>>> their safety (or the way WMF faced some problems like "freedom of
>>>>> speech", "freedom of thought" or "freedom of sexuality") are simply
>>>>> "irrealistic".
>>>>> Next step is "they're troll" (yet said by someone, thanks).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this respect?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>> foundation-l
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>>> foundation-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>