Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
I'll respond to a few related comments and questions at once: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of course it's a major issue. Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would oppose any Board action that did so. Phoebe writes: I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in; On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote; I find it shocking that the board has chosen to explicitly support this 'wild west' approach. The Board does not support this - although individuals may - it is not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved with project policy or content discussions. Jimmy represents himself when he contributes to the projects. I don't find a 'wild west' approach helpful. However some community members have in the past; and Jimmy's founder role stems from the deference of the community, not a blessing from the Board. --- Millosh asked about the Board perspective on the Jimmy's last actions on Commons, so here is mine: Jimmy started a discussion on Commons, about a subject he cares deeply about. It began well. As Adam and others have said, by Friday morning there was an active community discussion led by Commons administrators, and steady progress on fleshing out a sexual content policy. That was largely attributable to Jimmy's help facilitating a community discussion around a concrete proposal. I engaged in the discussion myself, but my comments there -- as those of any Trustee -- represent only my input as a member of the community. Since Friday afternoon, this has been derailed. Jimmy acted boldly and unilaterally, changed the developing draft significantly and then acted on it, reverted opposition without comment, and threatened desysopping. Work on the proposal died. Boldness is useful - I am a fan of WP:BRD - but I am concerned about the last point. From Jimmy's talk page today: I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship... removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue -- this Sword of Damocles is problematic. It is difficult to reach meaningful consensus in an atmosphere of fear. I hope that noone in the Commons community feels threatened or unable to speak their mind (or to exercise their administrative abilities in carrying out their work). As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons community to work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy if they are willing. I encourage those who feel strongly about these issues to engage directly in discussions there. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 02:12, Pedro Sanchez wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too because I have faith in universal values. In fact I've been attracted like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered: In this world rushing into its own demise, who is struggling to better the human condition and protect our Earth? I can certainly say you've been around /only/ a year and half, as you seem to believe all this is about wikipedia. It's about commons and wikimedia in general. (Here, and I've /only/ been around 5 years, but that's irrelevant) No, no, I use wikipedia as a metonymy, because I don't know the word for the idea behind all the WMF projects. Replace wikipedia by universal access to knowledge if you wish. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5oNdAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LgwQH/Reu+1Rh8wvp2UKHPPHjohNP czVEha3G53YzbIuGHcSC1zgc7qNsKzQ07iOlBlWCv1kJJ4MpHoY0Au5widLXGFB3 QFW+nhnKpV1+UPdBqbOnVZKFW2kmovo5s7FHNyBxeTCaUhQFR49o98hilgg/zmgB 0p6lYLg5If6jsS1+e8YLg/UxvNZ4WlS/JKi+o3uq0H4RzDYVnbJoLSoNMdHzSHLI Zk2rc5WRcsk5DQcZtQCl/8r/QX0CDVpskSgTbwEkbK2wX6GOqYulI34x+nv07Kvk Cj/N+qGDrMhp6/yLtHlu4+p8wH5RNp830aUxWbSgmQq+RfF1fqn78JAwpDvTmw4= =b/Ee -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On 9 May 2010 07:30, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of course it's a major issue. Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would oppose any Board action that did so. You seem to be saying what you saw happening did not in fact happen. You'll appreciate I find this difficult to go along with. Phoebe writes: I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in; On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote; I find it shocking that the board has chosen to explicitly support this 'wild west' approach. The Board does not support this - although individuals may - it is not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved with project policy or content discussions. Jimmy represents himself when he contributes to the projects. The board members that have bothered speaking up have so far supported it. Ting has expressly endorsed Board control over project content. Again, you're telling me that what I saw happening, and what I saw people saying, was not what was happening or what people were saying. Again, you'll appreciate I find this difficult to go along with. I hope that noone in the Commons community feels threatened or unable to speak their mind (or to exercise their administrative abilities in carrying out their work). I think it will take considerable work to make that hope come true, given the actions so far. As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons community to work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy if they are willing. I encourage those who feel strongly about these issues to engage directly in discussions there. The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 May 2010 07:30, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would oppose any Board action that did so. The Board does not support this - although individuals may - it is not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved with project policy or content discussions. The board members that have bothered speaking up have so far supported it. Ting has expressly endorsed Board control over project content. They are still speaking as individuals - and were mainly commenting on whether they thought it was appropriate for Jimmy to spur a policy discussion as a community member. Please do not confuse personal opinions - including my own - for a stance of the Board. Our mandate as a Board explicitly precludes meddling in Project policy, community disputes, and the like. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member And the Board has always taken care in its official statements not to suggest it is directing project policy or content, except where -- as with the 2007 licensing policy -- this is the explicit intent, and the policy change crafted after extensive discussion with the Projects. As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons community to work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy if they are willing. I encourage those who feel strongly about these issues to engage directly in discussions there. The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board. The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project, unless you consider high-level goal-setting and prioritization ( like http://j.mp/wmfblp ) editorial. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On 9 May 2010 13:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board. The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project, nunless you consider high-level goal-setting and prioritization ( like http://j.mp/wmfblp ) editorial. Then (a) actions in the present case (b) Ting's express statements in the present case do not match this. As such, you need to be addressing the actions rather than just repeating but our mandate doesn't allow us to do what we so egregiously actually did. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained his position in details). According to not precise Board's statement I may guess who supports Jimmy's action and who doesn't. However, I don't want to guess. As a member of community who directly or through the chapters elects five Board members and other four through the delegation given to the previous five members, I want to know positions of other Board members. Position of two of them (Michael Snow and Arne Klempert) will directly affect my position toward their reelection as chapters members and thus the position of one chapter (the has process already begun). Position of directly elected Board members (Kat Walsh, Ting Chen and Samuel Klein) will affect how I will vote next year. Position of professional Board members (Jan-Bart de Vreede, Stu West, Matt Halprin and Bishakha Datta) will affect what would I require from my representatives inside of the Board. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained his position in details). According to not precise Board's statement I may guess who supports Jimmy's action and who doesn't. However, I don't want to guess. As a member of community who directly or through the chapters elects five Board members and other four through the delegation given to the previous five members, I want to know positions of other Board members. Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how the foundation gets run. I do wish that there were a better way for board members to participate as community members in discussions and explore issues without their every move getting scrutinized as a potential board statement; that goes for Jimmy, too. Our board members are all smart, well-respected people and I'd like to hear their opinions more often about everything, but I think that the fact of having to draft and present consensus positions to an often-critical community hampers them. I'm not sure if there's a good answer to this problem. -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On 8 May 2010 17:29, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how the foundation gets run. It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of course it's a major issue. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 May 2010 17:29, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how the foundation gets run. It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of course it's a major issue. I don't disagree, but I meant what I said about *single* most important issue! And I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in; this is not the first time in the last decade that he's used bold action to get us to rethink content policies. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: I don't disagree, but I meant what I said about *single* most important issue! And I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in; this is not the first time in the last decade that he's used bold action to get us to rethink content policies. This depends on which us you're speaking about. Jimmy is basically unheard of on commons, except by the English speaking audience that knows him via English Wikipedia. He has never intervened on commons, as far as I know, — he only had some 30 edits or so at the time this began. Likewise for most of the other Wikipedias which this event has impacted. As far as which capacity, I think Jimmy's own statements make this abundantly clear regardless of what the PR spin says: I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue)., I am in constant communication with both the board and Sue Gardner about this issue, and Some things are simply going to be non-negotiable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On 8 May 2010 17:46, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: As far as which capacity, I think Jimmy's own statements make this abundantly clear regardless of what the PR spin says: I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue)., I am in constant communication with both the board and Sue Gardner about this issue, and Some things are simply going to be non-negotiable. I've been working on the RationalWiki article on the decline and all-but-collapse of Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium - CZ now has less contributors or actitvity than *Conservapedia*. And a lot of that was due to hasty interventions from the founder. (Leading to this final last-ditch attempt to drum up interest by attacking Wikipedia.) I doubt Wikimedia is going to collapse soon, it's a bit big. But this sort of thing drives away the community disproportionately. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained his position in details). According to not precise Board's statement I may guess who supports Jimmy's action and who doesn't. However, I don't want to guess. As a member of community who directly or through the chapters elects five Board members and other four through the delegation given to the previous five members, I want to know positions of other Board members. Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how the foundation gets run. There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy... (Saying so, I am not talking in absolute terms: we are not able to have all human knowledge, but the most important of; if people are deciding what should be censored for themselves, I am fine; sometimes we need [well planned] bold actions; sometimes it is nice to watch a surrealistic comedy.) Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values. And I don't feel that I am the only one who has the opinion similar to the opinion described inside of my ask. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 00:05, Milos Rancic wrote: There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy... [..] Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values. I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too because I have faith in universal values. In fact I've been attracted like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered: In this world rushing into its own demise, who is struggling to better the human condition and protect our Earth? I think the whole active community are here because they believe that wikipedia is a fantastic project leading to a better world. With time, more and more people will believe it. This, my friends, is an incredible potential. This is the first time in mankind history that so much freedom for sharing knowledge is available for so many humans. We have a duty because we are the first. So let's not forget the long term goals and what is really at stake. It is good to be concerned by survival but survival cannot be the first priority, otherwise you'll lose ALL your values. It is true that the current crisis must be addressed but at the same time we must remember that it's just a moment in our long way to go. What's really important in this discussion is how to ensure that wikipedia will survive WITH ITS GOALS INTACT. The answer is yours, but I think that everyone should at least once ask himself about our current dilemmas (censorship, external pressure, Mr. Wales' power, etc.): Is it threatening our goal? (Why and how?) Is it threatening our survival? (Why and how?) Mutual understanding and solutions can be built from this mental frame. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5jvCAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Lp/wH/jpt6HoNHi12rBZwk1UhC2BM JS6dOI8cRwiWJ2hPv6y4yTRex4ql6RyXTiXp74xeo22S+XCn7rwX8E+3RC7qoUnA mvggu9z9qSlL2ENVgLP3a1RSb8xKVrqSWJm8GvyBEMG8u6oAVlINZzjwnKK2mbUv iwUXU1tF02W9N3SjfaeTRVYxOLszsmKhXH7wrwho5ZTzTr81PIvj7qsCDUQopDwQ eRSJVo47Iu0YVrlBSXqZv7Nx12D6S8OSy/YdUQIkJJOqd3uKzQpTIa4Q6FL92Uhu 8+hEbFUzzzVA6GNqt7gmjtzbz8DUq+6JImfmIusHOcNzRzOQTu/pn+tPTPHbo/M= =eANa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too because I have faith in universal values. In fact I've been attracted like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered: In this world rushing into its own demise, who is struggling to better the human condition and protect our Earth? foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I can certainly say you've been around /only/ a year and half, as you seem to believe all this is about wikipedia. It's about commons and wikimedia in general. (Here, and I've /only/ been around 5 years, but that's irrelevant) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
