[Foundation-l] new list summaries
Well, Milos, I wouldn't worry about the lists going dead -- there was lots of activity this month so far :) Summaries: * Foundation-l: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2008_December_1-15 * Wiki-en-l: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/wikiEN-l-archives/2008_12_1-15 * and special bonus Wikinews-l, by Anonymous101: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/Wikinews-l-archives/2008-11 best, Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Florence Devouard wrote: > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> Florence Devouard wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever >>> government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and >>> think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for >>> these different futures. >>> >>> Ant >>> >>> >>> >>> >> To say again what I already noted in another posting but in >> other words; I really think planning like this should be done >> at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which >> any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. >> >> >> Yours, >> >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> >> >> P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, >> but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such >> lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua >> non. >> > > > It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully > understand your point about the trolls). > There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF. > > A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided > at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And > I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into > the decision making at the global level. > What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now > restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you > advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is > not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing. > > I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either > issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the > local level, without much learning and much global understanding. > > But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable. > > I think you read completely different things into what I wrote, than the words in plain state; perhaps you read my text in too much haste. Planning for crises and contingencies is a totally different thing than making decisions. Crises and contingencies require prepared options, which are by their nature not "decisions made", but only happen in the event, as the events themselves dictate, with the actors hopefully applying a sound Observe, Orient, Decide, Act ([[OODA Loop]]) manner of operations. Your sentence: "What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top." ...is the very opposite of what I wished to communicate. Issues of laying out hard and soft options for contingencies is a very specific and ring-fenced area of operations. It could not be further from "every decision at the global level". I would however recommend every local and global actor to peruse our article on the OODA Loop, and on its creator John Boyd in general too, for that matter. But for more general decision making in the foundation, that is a completely separate matter, which should not be mixed in with the discussion of how to plan for crises. It is in fact the case that so far, as wikipedians get more practise with crises (germany and france seem to have had more practise than most), the experience itself will likely improve the general readiness of the foundation staff and local actors acting in concert when events unfold on the ground. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Where you see tyranny I see beauty. A majority of the people acted (A real majority!) to speak through their ballots. That is the purest form of democracy, and that is how California works. We are not a rightocracy. If people have an issue with that, there are 49 other states to live in. The best part about this is that all it takes to overturn this law is another vote. The main reason this law was so successful was that gay marriage was legalized by judicial fiat. The people of California do not like it when the courts act as legislators. All that is necessary to overturn this law is to ask the electorate again, and let the will of the people govern. From: Ray Saintonge To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:02:53 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] and what if... Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >> > > If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is > a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't > get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just > because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the > electorate agrees with you. So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: October 2008
Hi Sue, thanks for the report. I was already looking out for it! :) I'd like to join in with Florences question. But also have a small additional suggestion. Would it be nice to the chapters to have somewhere a list of all major software WMF is using? As a suggestion list? For example, GIMP for promotional images editing etc, so that the chapters have an easier time looking for free software on accounting etc. Would be great! Thanks a lot, Lodewijk 2008/12/14 Florence Devouard > Sue Gardner wrote: > > Hey folks, > > > > Here is the RTTB for October. November will follow soon :-) > > > > Enjoy! > > Sue > > > > > > Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > > > Covering: October 2008 > > Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > > > MY CURRENT PRIORITIES > > > > 1. Planning for Bangalore and Davos trips > > 2. Finalization of staff goals and performance check-ins > > 3. Planning for development of the strategic plan > > 4. Ongoing major donor solicitation and stewardship, foundation proposal > > follow-up > > 5. Bits and pieces (all-staff meeting, CPO recruitment, Wikimania 2008 > > postmortem, office space revamp, Board Nominating Committee, etc.) > > > > THIS PAST MONTH > > > > BOARD MEETING > > > > The Board met the first weekend of October at the WMF offices in San > > Francisco, with all Board members in attendance. During the meeting, the > > Board reviewed and approved the Gift Policy and Privacy Policy. As > always, > > these are posted at: > > > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies > > > > Treasurer Stuart West presented an update on the audit, informing the > Board > > that the audit is progressing much more quickly than last year, and that > the > > Board will receive the financial statements within a few weeks. > Vice-Chair > > Jan-Bart de Vreede made a presentation on Open Standards and a discussion > > was held about file formats. > > > > Discussions were also held about Advisory Board and Board development, > and > > the formation of sub-national chapters. Erik Moeller gave updates and > > answered questions regarding Wikimedia's technology priorities, and the > > online fundraiser. Minutes from the July meeting were approved. > > > > The minutes of the October meeting will be approved and published > following > > the next board meeting, in January. > > > > FUNDRAISING AND GRANTS > > > > Extensive work was done by all departments on fine-tuning the various > > components of the Annual Campaign in preparation for the launch the > first > > week of November: > > > > * Further testing and development of the CiviCRM donor database, > including > > e-mail capabilities – for the first time, we've got automated e-mail > thank > > yous set up for all donors > > * Development of campaign management tools for sitenotice deployment, > such > > as scheduling and weighting of different sitenotices > > * Lining up external support by design and PR firms; producing the first > > sitenotices; developing audio PSAs > > * Identifying core messages that need to be translated and coordinating > > volunteer translations > > * Streamlining and documenting all fundraising related procedures, such > as > > donor thank-yous > > * Developing a fundraising agreement between WMF and the chapters which > want > > to participate in the online fundraiser > > * Investigating historical PayPal data that hasn't been imported into the > > database > > * Inviting past $1000+ donors to make leadership gifts prior to the > > beginning of the 2008 fundraiser. > > > > For the first time, the online fundraiser is led and coordinated by a > > dedicated staff member, Rand Montoya. > > > > We followed up on leads from the Funders' Briefings in September, > including > > people who could not attend the briefings. > > > > There were 935 donations made in the month of October for a total of USD > > 65,503.32 > > > > OUTREACH > > > > Frank Schulenburg worked with the Argentinian chapter to finalize plans > for > > the first Wikipedia Academy in Buenos Aires, to be held in early > November. > > Frank also spoke at the FSCONS conference in Gothenburg, Sweden and > > supported Wikimedia Germany's Zedler Medal article writing award as well > as > > the Quadriga Award ceremony. > > > > Frank also participated in a dedicated meeting/conference where the > current > > state of Wikimedia was discussed among Wikipedians and > > academics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Siggen > > > > Sue spoke at conferences in Florida and Germany, and met with the Knight > > Foundation in Florida. > > > > SOS Children UK, in coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation, released > a > > complete 2008/9 revision of the Wikipedia Selection for Schools, which is > > perhaps the most successful "checked content" project derived from the > > English Wikipedia. > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2008-9_Selection_f
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: October 2008
Sue Gardner wrote: > Hey folks, > > Here is the RTTB for October. November will follow soon :-) > > Enjoy! > Sue > > > Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > Covering: October 2008 > Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation > Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > MY CURRENT PRIORITIES > > 1. Planning for Bangalore and Davos trips > 2. Finalization of staff goals and performance check-ins > 3. Planning for development of the strategic plan > 4. Ongoing major donor solicitation and stewardship, foundation proposal > follow-up > 5. Bits and pieces (all-staff meeting, CPO recruitment, Wikimania 2008 > postmortem, office space revamp, Board Nominating Committee, etc.) > > THIS PAST MONTH > > BOARD MEETING > > The Board met the first weekend of October at the WMF offices in San > Francisco, with all Board members in attendance. During the meeting, the > Board reviewed and approved the Gift Policy and Privacy Policy. As always, > these are posted at: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies > > Treasurer Stuart West presented an update on the audit, informing the Board > that the audit is progressing much more quickly than last year, and that the > Board will receive the financial statements within a few weeks. Vice-Chair > Jan-Bart de Vreede made a presentation on Open Standards and a discussion > was held about file formats. > > Discussions were also held about Advisory Board and Board development, and > the formation of sub-national chapters. Erik Moeller gave updates and > answered questions regarding Wikimedia's technology priorities, and the > online fundraiser. Minutes from the July meeting were approved. > > The minutes of the October meeting will be approved and published following > the next board meeting, in January. > > FUNDRAISING AND GRANTS > > Extensive work was done by all departments on fine-tuning the various > components of the Annual Campaign in preparation for the launch the first > week of November: > > * Further testing and development of the CiviCRM donor database, including > e-mail capabilities – for the first time, we've got automated e-mail thank > yous set up for all donors > * Development of campaign management tools for sitenotice deployment, such > as scheduling and weighting of different sitenotices > * Lining up external support by design and PR firms; producing the first > sitenotices; developing audio PSAs > * Identifying core messages that need to be translated and coordinating > volunteer translations > * Streamlining and documenting all fundraising related procedures, such as > donor thank-yous > * Developing a fundraising agreement between WMF and the chapters which want > to participate in the online fundraiser > * Investigating historical PayPal data that hasn't been imported into the > database > * Inviting past $1000+ donors to make leadership gifts prior to the > beginning of the 2008 fundraiser. > > For the first time, the online fundraiser is led and coordinated by a > dedicated staff member, Rand Montoya. > > We followed up on leads from the Funders' Briefings in September, including > people who could not attend the briefings. > > There were 935 donations made in the month of October for a total of USD > 65,503.32 > > OUTREACH > > Frank Schulenburg worked with the Argentinian chapter to finalize plans for > the first Wikipedia Academy in Buenos Aires, to be held in early November. > Frank also spoke at the FSCONS conference in Gothenburg, Sweden and > supported Wikimedia Germany's Zedler Medal article writing award as well as > the Quadriga Award ceremony. > > Frank also participated in a dedicated meeting/conference where the current > state of Wikimedia was discussed among Wikipedians and > academics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Siggen > > Sue spoke at conferences in Florida and Germany, and met with the Knight > Foundation in Florida. > > SOS Children UK, in coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation, released a > complete 2008/9 revision of the Wikipedia Selection for Schools, which is > perhaps the most successful "checked content" project derived from the > English > Wikipedia.http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2008-9_Selection_for_Schools > > TECHNOLOGY > > We welcomed two additions to the technical staff: Trevor Parscal, who will > work as a software developer, and Ariel Glenn, who will do development work > but also help with technical support for the San Francisco office. > > Thanks to a volunteer, Robert Stojnic, and the deployment of new search > servers, we've enabled new search features, limited to the English Wikipedia > for > now:http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-October/040022.html > > We've also enabled the PediaPress technology on all Wikibooks wikis. It > allows wiki-to-PDF export, wiki-to-ODT export, and print-on-demand delivery > of collections of pages. Pending further review, us
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Florence Devouard wrote: >> Birgitte SB wrote: >> >>> I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help >>> make their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should >>> help anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide >>> we would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with >>> censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate >>> with which governments we are willing to help. >>> >>> Personally I don't get censorship, nor the complacency Europeans generally >>> have about living under it. I don't get it but I can recognize that many >>> other people see it differently and may want to support censorship. But we >>> can't pick and choose which government's censorship we will support. This >>> is an international organization and nothing in mission expresses support >>> for western mores over others. Selectively helping some governments censor >>> would be a disastrous move for WMF to make. >>> >>> Birgitte SB >>> >> Hello >> >> I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever >> government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and >> think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for >> these different futures. >> >> Ant >> >> >> > > To say again what I already noted in another posting but in > other words; I really think planning like this should be done > at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which > any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, > but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such > lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua > non. It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully understand your point about the trolls). There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF. A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into the decision making at the global level. What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing. I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the local level, without much learning and much global understanding. But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
2008/12/15 Ray Saintonge : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >>> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >>> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >>> >> >> If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is >> a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't >> get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just >> because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the >> electorate agrees with you. > So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is > justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay > marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the > rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Democracy is the worst system of government - except for all the others. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which >> determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One >> may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. >> > > If the country has free and fair elections for its leaders then it is > a democracy. A law made by democratically elected leaders that doesn't > get in the way of free and fair elections cannot be undemocratic. Just > because you don't like the law doesn't mean a majority of the > electorate agrees with you. So it seems that you feel that the tyranny of the majority is justified. California recently voted by a small majority to outlaw gay marriages. When democracy is used that way to needlessly suppress the rights of the minority it puts doubts into its democratic credentials. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Todd Allen wrote: > Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which > determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One > may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy. > > Prior-restraint censorship, or blocking people from seeing, > discussing, and thinking about (as opposed to performing) potentially > harmful actions make that answer a "no". > I cringe when I hear that an application has been made to the courts in India to block Google Earth because the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks used Google Earth in planning those attacks. Most uses of such a service remain perfectly innocent and productive, and submitting to paranoid police mentality can be more harmful than most of the dangers the police pretends to prevent. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
Hi all, Yes, I know that in large organizations it is uncommon to approve minutes by email. I however see no fundamental obstacles myself, but I'd love to hear from them if they are there. Please note that "commonness" is no argument to me in this case. I understand how we got to the current situation, but that is not what I want to discuss. I'd like to discuss a change in that situation :) It is about minutes, not about opinions. The only thing that should be judged while publishing is 1) whether they reflect the truth and 2) whether there is anything in there that should remain non-disclosed. Both can in principle perfectly be considered by email imho. A summary is something, but personally I prefer the real resolutions and minutes :) In general they are not too extensive anyway in this organization. And, as Thomas pointed out, this *is* an unusual organization. Not only are there many volunteers, but there are also a lot of chapters who are dependent in some way of these resolutions. These can influence their functioning quite a lot, and only recieve the minutes together with the general public. But of course, again, if there are heavy arguments not to do this, I'd love to hear of them :) Thank you Ting, for taking it to the board. I hope that in the future, the community and chapters can more actively participate in the movement :) Best regards, Lodewijk 2008/12/14 Ting Chen > The chair of the board, Michael, had posted the topics before the > meeting and a short report about resolutions and issues discussed after > the meeting. > > Ting > > Anthony wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders > > wrote: > > > > > >> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have > board > >> minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means > a > >> delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is > quite > >> a long time span. > >> > >> > > > > That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes > > without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous > consent > > resolution, but that's certainly not typical.) > > > > Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the > > > >> minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept > more > >> up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to > >> interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published > >> months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is > obviously > >> much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are > more > >> or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the > decisions > >> made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board > >> meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months). > >> > >> I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes > within, > >> say, two weeks to a month :) > >> > > > > > > Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting) > > would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another. > > > > Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing > stopping > > any board member from providing a summary at any time. If so, well, then > > why publish the minutes in the first place? > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
The chair of the board, Michael, had posted the topics before the meeting and a short report about resolutions and issues discussed after the meeting. Ting Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders > wrote: > > >> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board >> minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a >> delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite >> a long time span. >> >> > > That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes > without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous consent > resolution, but that's certainly not typical.) > > Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the > >> minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept more >> up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to >> interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published >> months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is obviously >> much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are more >> or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the decisions >> made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board >> meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months). >> >> I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes within, >> say, two weeks to a month :) >> > > > Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting) > would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another. > > Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing stopping > any board member from providing a summary at any time. If so, well, then > why publish the minutes in the first place? > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2008/12/14 Anthony : > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders > > wrote: > > > >> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have > board > >> minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means > a > >> delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is > quite > >> a long time span. > >> > > > > That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes > > without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous > consent > > resolution, but that's certainly not typical.) > > It's also not typical to have a large group of very committed and > interested volunteers wanting to know what's going on. Maybe not typical, but it's fairly common. Of course, organizations with volunteers that are very committed and interested are usually membership organizations, and members are invited to the meetings. Approving the > minutes by email would seem perfectly practical to me. > > Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting) > > would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another. > > > > Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing > stopping > > any board member from providing a summary at any time. If so, well, then > > why publish the minutes in the first place? > > It may not be wise to publish unapproved minutes - if there are > mistakes, the consequences could be rather unfortunate. Yeah, an informal summary would be better. Or just record the whole thing (minus any "closed session" portions) and put it on the Internet. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
2008/12/14 Anthony : > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders > wrote: > >> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board >> minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a >> delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite >> a long time span. >> > > That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes > without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous consent > resolution, but that's certainly not typical.) It's also not typical to have a large group of very committed and interested volunteers wanting to know what's going on. Approving the minutes by email would seem perfectly practical to me. > Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting) > would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another. > > Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing stopping > any board member from providing a summary at any time. If so, well, then > why publish the minutes in the first place? It may not be wise to publish unapproved minutes - if there are mistakes, the consequences could be rather unfortunate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders wrote: > From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board > minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a > delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite > a long time span. > That's a fairly standard practice. How would you approve the minutes without holding a meeting? (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous consent resolution, but that's certainly not typical.) Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the > minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept more > up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to > interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published > months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is obviously > much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are more > or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the decisions > made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board > meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months). > > I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes within, > say, two weeks to a month :) Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting) would be one thing. Approving the official minutes is quite another. Are the meetings considered confidential? If not, there's nothing stopping any board member from providing a summary at any time. If so, well, then why publish the minutes in the first place? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes
Hello Effe, I think this is a good suggestion. I will put it on the next meeting at the second weekend of the new year. Ting effe iets anders wrote: > >From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board > minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a > delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite > a long time span. > > Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the > minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept more > up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to > interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published > months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is obviously > much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are more > or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the decisions > made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board > meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months). > > I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes within, > say, two weeks to a month :) > > Best regards, > > Lodewijk > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Judson Dunn wrote: > Make no mistake, the free dissemination of all human knowledge to > every person on the planet is a fight. The forces that would spread > ignorance as a means of control, and separation are always fighting > back. The idea that we should acquiesce in that fight, and censor our > own information from people that are searching for that knowledge is > disgusting, and would cause a substantial backlash against the > Foundation. The very mission of the WMF is illegal as hell in a huge number of countries including some that are considered democratic, Western and what ever. Censorship is so deeply engraved into legal systems that is isn't even recognized as such in many cases. It can fall under protection "from illegal content" including "from hate crimes", "of personal honor", "of privacy", "of dignity of the king", "of the nation and its culture as such" and what ever more reasons there are to limit free speech. Even in areas where most probably all of us will agree that some content should not be publicly available, such as child pornography, there are huge issues about the scope and the method of the ban. Not even the European Union can agree on what is a child or what is pornographic, so how could we establish global guidelines on acceptable content? Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Thomas Dalton wrote: > It's a democratically elected government making the laws > and those laws don't prevent free and fair elections, so it isn't > undemocratic. (Of course, an semi-official and unaccountable agency > like the IWF enforcing the laws is not a great way to go about it.) Your addendum makes the point: Outsourcing censorship to a private body with no public appeal process is a bad idea. And the UK public noticed that now. Let's see if the incident has legislative consequences. But that is not our problem. On the other hand, a governmental agency with proper procedures and processes would have acted much slower in both directions. Self-regulatory bodies might be too fast in acting sometimes - but they are more flexible in reacting than governments as well. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] board minutes
>From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite a long time span. Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept more up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is obviously much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are more or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the decisions made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months). I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes within, say, two weeks to a month :) Best regards, Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
> There may be some of that, but it is also true that a lot of experts > are actually unhelpful (perhaps we could do something to improve that, > though - a system for experts to review articles, rather than edit > them, might be good). When experts get involved in editing there are > often ownership and original research issues (or, to be more precise, > WP:OWN and WP:OR issues - following an earlier discussion, I deleted > the acronyms and wrote them out in full and then realised that > actually that makes my statement ambiguous since people don't know if > I'm using the terms in their general dictionary meanings or their very > precise Wikipedia policy meanings, and in fact, I meant the latter - > jargon serves a purpose and from now on I think I'm just going to use > it!). Have a look at what I was preparing if you are interested http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yaroslav_Blanter/Temp17 Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
