Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Bishakha Datta  wrote:
> I agree that this needs improvement, but I think we must also allow for the
> possibility that not pro-actively providing a document does not necessarily
> translate into an intention to hide something.
>
> I find this underlying layer of impressions very interesting - to me, it
> speaks of much work needed to increase levels of trust between different
> movement players.


Not really. Just restoring them to previous longstanding trust levels would
be more than sufficient. But that it will entail much work, is certainly true.
And a very positive note that there is a recognition of diminished trust. The
fact that you were able to state it thus, does seem to indicate that the events
that occasioned that loss of trust have receded into hazy recollections. That
can't hurt in trying to re-establish a good relationship between
different actors.
There are no open sores left, and thus genuine healing may commence.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Teofilo]

A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a "block
with consequences" in the case I would perform any "similar move", a
move similar with what I did which they interpret as "disrupting
Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (1).

As the wording is totally vague ("similar move") this deprives me of
the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
on community matters is being denied.

What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
switching from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom"
status (2).

So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
which provides different access procedures according to whether the
wiki is with or without arbcom (3).

Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?

Would it be possible to have some kind of "meta-arbcom" that would be
a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
principles, such as freedom of speech ?

References:

(1) 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
(2) 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
(3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser

See also:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
 [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
very short majority (52.4%)]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Thomas Dalton]

You're taking about a whistleblower policy[1], essentially. Normally, they
are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal
policies (see the Foundation's policy[2] for example) but there is no
reason we couldn't have a broader one.

It would need to be quite limited in scope to avoid it being too open to
abuse, though.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
2. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
On Nov 3, 2012 11:01 AM, "Teofilo"  wrote:

> A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a "block
> with consequences" in the case I would perform any "similar move", a
> move similar with what I did which they interpret as "disrupting
> Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (1).
>
> As the wording is totally vague ("similar move") this deprives me of
> the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
> on community matters is being denied.
>
> What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
> current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
> switching from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom"
> status (2).
>
> So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
> which provides different access procedures according to whether the
> wiki is with or without arbcom (3).
>
> Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
> making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?
>
> Would it be possible to have some kind of "meta-arbcom" that would be
> a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
> principles, such as freedom of speech ?
>
> References:
>
> (1)
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
> (2)
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
>  [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
> very short majority (52.4%)]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente  wrote:

> > think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there
> > (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course
> I'm
> > counting on it that also other board members will support the thought
> > behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive
> would
> > be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page
> > and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made
> > possible.
>
> > I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as
> well,
> Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the
> subject does not make too much sense: it would be better "Improving
> governance", perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us.
>
> Patricio
>

Or may be... "improving transparency"?

Governance is not transparency, governance is "controlling".


-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Alhen]

*1.* We have no arbcom on es.wiki.
*2. *I was choosen as a checkuser by our last arbcom
*3.* Now, the community created a different process to appoint
checkusers(After more than 3 years or so).

Teofilo, if the community has decided to go without an arbcom and leave
things like the way they are, I suggest you accept it. Asking the removal
of checkuser rights without community support is indeed a bad move.

Alhen

@alhen_
alhen at wikipedia, wikihow, wikispaces, and most places.
Promotor de Wikimedia Bolivia
00-591-79592235




2012/11/3 Teofilo 

> A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a "block
> with consequences" in the case I would perform any "similar move", a
> move similar with what I did which they interpret as "disrupting
> Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (1).
>
> As the wording is totally vague ("similar move") this deprives me of
> the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
> on community matters is being denied.
>
> What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
> current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
> switching from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom"
> status (2).
>
> So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
> which provides different access procedures according to whether the
> wiki is with or without arbcom (3).
>
> Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
> making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?
>
> Would it be possible to have some kind of "meta-arbcom" that would be
> a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
> principles, such as freedom of speech ?
>
> References:
>
> (1)
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
> (2)
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
>  [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
> very short majority (52.4%)]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Patricio Lorente]

2012/11/3 Ilario Valdelli :
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente > wrote:
>
>> > think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there
>> > (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course
>> I'm
>> > counting on it that also other board members will support the thought
>> > behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive
>> would
>> > be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page
>> > and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made
>> > possible.
>>
>> > I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as
>> well,
>> Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the
>> subject does not make too much sense: it would be better "Improving
>> governance", perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us.
>>
>> Patricio
>>
>
> Or may be... "improving transparency"?
>
> Governance is not transparency, governance is "controlling".

Hi Ilario!

"Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
transparency :)

Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this
discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set
up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision
making.

Patricio

-- 
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Thomas Dalton]

Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I
think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the
Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed.
On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, "Patricio Lorente" 
wrote:

> 2012/11/3 Ilario Valdelli :
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> patricio.lore...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is
> there
> >> > (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course
> >> I'm
> >> > counting on it that also other board members will support the thought
> >> > behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive
> >> would
> >> > be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the
> page
> >> > and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be
> made
> >> > possible.
> >>
> >> > I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as
> >> well,
> >> Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the
> >> subject does not make too much sense: it would be better "Improving
> >> governance", perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us.
> >>
> >> Patricio
> >>
> >
> > Or may be... "improving transparency"?
> >
> > Governance is not transparency, governance is "controlling".
>
> Hi Ilario!
>
> "Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
> though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
> procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
> transparency :)
>
> Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this
> discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set
> up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision
> making.
>
> Patricio
>
> --
> Patricio Lorente
> Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
> Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Patricio Lorente  wrote:

>
> Hi Ilario!
>
> "Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
> though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
> procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
> transparency :)
>
>
Yes, it's a little bit complicated to explain but consider "controlling" as
"having the right information in a suitable time".

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Thomas Dalton, 03/11/2012 13:51:

Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I
think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the
Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed.


On the other hand, transparency's true aim is to involve people; 
otherwise it's just fake transparency. Indeed, "Democratizing" is the 
clearest term we've come up with.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I
> think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the
> Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed.
> On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, "Patricio Lorente" 
> wrote:
>
>
This is a complex problem in my opinion.

In a democracy the better solution would be to know the opinion of all
people.

For instance in Switzerland there are a lot of referendum but the people
having a vote are relatively cut and a referendum may give an opinion the
day after (I am speaking about opinion but in a perfect democracy this
opinion is more an "approval" vote).

The democracy is a good way if there is the possibility to have an
opportune people's opinion in a well defined time.

The problem of huge communities is to consult the people and to do it in a
timely manner in order to have an opinion in short time otherwise the
democracy may decide never and may spent the time only to find a consent.

For this reason the biggest democracies use the way of the representative
bodies.

The community elects a parliament and this parliament votes and decides
instead of people (in our case we may speak about "board").

All the modern democracies are structured in this way.

For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people
in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would
speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the
opportunity to be clearer.

The transparency may help them to keep a trusted link with the communities
and may help the communities to build a more appropriate reliance.

Ilario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Anders Wennersten]

After just being in our first FDC committee session, I do want to 
promote this way of handling issue to be spread to other issue areas too.


The FDC is a committee consisting of community members looking into on 
specific issue area and preparing recommendation to the Board. This 
enables broader involvement but also greater transparency, as all 
preparation material and assessments are public.


We also have a GAC with a similar approach and the group that took over 
after ChapCom. Why not extend this to other areas having thing like a 
GLAM Advisory committee, preparing material for the Board and any global 
framework needed in the are. A software/operation advisory committee 
overlooking everything related to our server operation and products. A 
community advisory committee, handling issues like legal support, 
wikimania, global arbcom etc.


Ie democratize the preparation of issues for the board, rather then 
discussing the internal operations of the Board


Anders




Patricio Lorente skrev 2012-11-03 13:47:


Hi Ilario!

"Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
transparency :)

Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this
discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set
up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision
making.

 Patricio




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Ilario Valdelli, 03/11/2012 14:11:

For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people
in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would
speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the
opportunity to be clearer.


As Nathan noted, the WMF board is not a representative democracy 
example: it's not elected, it's self-appointed.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Ilario Valdelli, 03/11/2012 14:11:
>
>  For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people
>> in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would
>> speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the
>> opportunity to be clearer.
>>
>
> As Nathan noted, the WMF board is not a representative democracy example:
> it's not elected, it's self-appointed.
>
> Nemo
> 
>

Partially self-appointed, partially elected. It means more transparency.

Ilario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Lodewijk]

Hi Anders,

while I appreciate all these discussions - I don't think we should try to
solve every problem in a single discussion page. Perfection is the enemy of
progress. I definitely think also the Affiliations Committee (formerly
known as Chapters Committee) can be improved, and as well the GAC and FDC
(Grants Advisory Committee / Funds Dissemination Committee). If there are
general issues with these committees that need resolving within this
specific field (involving community in the decision making process and
improving transparency) you're of course more than welcome to submit them
at the page.

Best,
Lodewijk

2012/11/3 Anders Wennersten 

> After just being in our first FDC committee session, I do want to promote
> this way of handling issue to be spread to other issue areas too.
>
> The FDC is a committee consisting of community members looking into on
> specific issue area and preparing recommendation to the Board. This enables
> broader involvement but also greater transparency, as all preparation
> material and assessments are public.
>
> We also have a GAC with a similar approach and the group that took over
> after ChapCom. Why not extend this to other areas having thing like a GLAM
> Advisory committee, preparing material for the Board and any global
> framework needed in the are. A software/operation advisory committee
> overlooking everything related to our server operation and products. A
> community advisory committee, handling issues like legal support,
> wikimania, global arbcom etc.
>
> Ie democratize the preparation of issues for the board, rather then
> discussing the internal operations of the Board
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> Patricio Lorente skrev 2012-11-03 13:47:
>
>
>> Hi Ilario!
>>
>> "Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
>> though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
>> procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
>> transparency :)
>>
>> Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this
>> discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set
>> up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision
>> making.
>>
>>  Patricio
>>
>>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Anders Wennersten]

My answer had noting to do with these committees as such but rather that 
these types of committees and delegation of preparations for the board 
could be extended for  other areas too which would broaden the democracy.


The parliaments I know of prepare issues through standing committees and 
this is am model i advocate for extending the democracy in the Movement 
as well, and undramatize the role of the Board


Anders




Lodewijk skrev 2012-11-03 14:24:

Hi Anders,

while I appreciate all these discussions - I don't think we should try to
solve every problem in a single discussion page. Perfection is the enemy of
progress. I definitely think also the Affiliations Committee (formerly
known as Chapters Committee) can be improved, and as well the GAC and FDC
(Grants Advisory Committee / Funds Dissemination Committee). If there are
general issues with these committees that need resolving within this
specific field (involving community in the decision making process and
improving transparency) you're of course more than welcome to submit them
at the page.

Best,
Lodewijk

2012/11/3 Anders Wennersten 


After just being in our first FDC committee session, I do want to promote
this way of handling issue to be spread to other issue areas too.

The FDC is a committee consisting of community members looking into on
specific issue area and preparing recommendation to the Board. This enables
broader involvement but also greater transparency, as all preparation
material and assessments are public.

We also have a GAC with a similar approach and the group that took over
after ChapCom. Why not extend this to other areas having thing like a GLAM
Advisory committee, preparing material for the Board and any global
framework needed in the are. A software/operation advisory committee
overlooking everything related to our server operation and products. A
community advisory committee, handling issues like legal support,
wikimania, global arbcom etc.

Ie democratize the preparation of issues for the board, rather then
discussing the internal operations of the Board

Anders




Patricio Lorente skrev 2012-11-03 13:47:



Hi Ilario!

"Improving transparency" is far better that "Democratizing WMF",
though governance is not about "controlling": is about decision making
procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about
transparency :)

Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this
discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set
up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision
making.

  Patricio



__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Anders Wennersten, 03/11/2012 14:43:

[...]  undramatize the role of the Board


Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to "dramatize" it even less 
than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall appearance).


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Anders Wennersten]

Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2012-11-03 15:03:


Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to "dramatize" it even less 
than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall 
appearance).


Nemo


I do no understand.
If they have a  "rubberstamping hall appearance" who is then perceived 
as having the power to decide.  And do you mean the preparation process 
is so excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I 
would  take to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy) 
what is then the issue at hand in this thread?

Anders


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 10:55:42 -0400, Newyorkbrad wrote:

The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a 
member of

the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
longer have an ArbCom.  Or is it just that there is disagreement 
about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom?  (The Meta discussion 
is

not completely clear.)

Newyorkbrad




If I understood it correctly, they just failed to elect one. I am not 
even sure that they actually decided to abolish the Arbcom. I did not go 
into details and may be wrong though.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Anders Wennersten, 03/11/2012 15:32:

I do no understand.
If they have a  "rubberstamping hall appearance" who is then perceived
as having the power to decide.  And do you mean the preparation process
is so excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I
would  take to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy)
what is then the issue at hand in this thread?


"Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation", in my opinion, means making 
the board stronger, not weaker. In two ways:
1) "more power" (i.e. a greater impact in its actions; not discretionary 
power for the sake of it) to a well functioning collegial body, which 
acts clearly and transparently and is accountable for its decisions, 
means more democracy, not less[1];
2) "more democracy" in the board and the WMF in general would mean a 
greater legitimacy/ability to take important decisions and have a bigger 
impact, i.e. "more power".


Of course this assumes that increasing democracy relative to the current 
situation is good, but we need to start from something (that's why the 
subject of this thread is a productive premise).
Given the audience, there are also other major assumptions on legitimacy 
sources, as Nathan hinted, and in particular that wikimedians have 
something to say, that power doesn't legitimate itself and that "dollar 
voting" by donors is not a source of legitimacy but that would bring 
us too far.


Nemo

[1] Maybe less anarchy.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Under block threat on fr.wp because of request on meta

[Newyorkbrad]

I have no knowledge of the dispute on French Wikipedia, but I've just read
the thread on Meta, and frankly I agree that your making and insisting on
your request seems to have been inappropriate.  We had a similar situation
recently involving English Wikipedia -- in which an editor went to Meta to
request that one of our checkusers have his rights remove because his
appointment was supposedly invalid, but he had never raised his concern on
English first and it turned out to be meritless -- and we did not take
kindly to that action at all.

As a matter of common sense, it seems more than reasonable that if a wiki
is transitioning from one method of appointing CUs to another, this doesn't
mean that all CUs appointed under the old method are invalid.  The
conclusion would be that French should be left with no CUs at all for an
indefinite period, which if French WP is subject to anything remotely
appoaching the level of spamming and disruption that hits English
sometimes, is unlikely to be a viable option.

The more intriguing question to me, as an editor who has been a member of
the English WP ArbCom for five years, is why French has decided to no
longer have an ArbCom.  Or is it just that there is disagreement about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom?  (The Meta discussion is
not completely clear.)

Newyorkbrad



On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo  wrote:

> A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a "block
> with consequences" in the case I would perform any "similar move", a
> move similar with what I did which they interpret as "disrupting
> Wikipedia to illustrate a point" (1).
>
> As the wording is totally vague ("similar move") this deprives me of
> the right to express myself on community matters. My freedom of speech
> on community matters is being denied.
>
> What I did, was a request to stewards on meta to remove access for all
> current French Checkusers as a consequence of the French Wikipedia
> switching from the "wiki with arbcom" to the "wiki without arbcom"
> status (2).
>
> So I am under threat, because I tried to enforce the checkuser policy,
> which provides different access procedures according to whether the
> wiki is with or without arbcom (3).
>
> Would it be possible to provide some kind of protection to users
> making requests on meta in reference to WMF policies ?
>
> Would it be possible to have some kind of "meta-arbcom" that would be
> a supreme court responsible for guaranteeing a set of fundamental
> principles, such as freedom of speech ?
>
> References:
>
> (1)
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_utilisateur%3ATeofilo&diff=84877524&oldid=84615519
> (2)
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=4347135#per_CheckUser_policy.23Checkuser_access.2C_all_current_checkusers_on_fr.Wikipedia.org_.28wiki_without_an_Arbitration_Committee.29
> (3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Checkuser
>  [The community vote in 2005 where checkusers where agreed by only a
> very short majority (52.4%)]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Theo10011]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Anders Wennersten
wrote:

>
> Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2012-11-03 15:03:
>
>
>> Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to "dramatize" it even less
>> than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall appearance).
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>>  I do no understand.
> If they have a  "rubberstamping hall appearance" who is then perceived as
> having the power to decide.  And do you mean the preparation process is so
> excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I would  take
> to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy) what is then the
> issue at hand in this thread?


Since, you took this thread into the direction of FDC, advocating how
extending that model would "undramatize the role of the board". And you
asked the question about who has the power above, try and consider for a
moment - who picked you for the FDC? who thought of the FDC to begin with?
who laid out the framework, and facilitated its creation?

I can go on to point out the presence of board members, and this evaluation
period for the FDC when it's useful will be decided in 2 years. who will
decide then, to even have the FDC around anymore? Right, Democracy.

There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Anders Wennersten]

Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 16:12:




There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are.

Regards

I do not understand what you refer to in this statement. Could you 
please elaborate what you believe is the centers of power?


Anders



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Theo10011]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 16:12:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>  I do not understand what you refer to in this statement. Could you
> please elaborate what you believe is the centers of power?


Sure, let's see. You questioned who has the power to decide, as opposed to
Nemo's analogy of a rubber-stamping hall. Centers of power, are dominant
forces that define a particular time and decide the overall direction. They
influence rather than give the appearance of direct interaction. In this
context, I was pointing out that these ideas are conceptualized by a small
minority in private, suggestions like let's have an FDC, let's remove
fellowships, cut spending and narrow focus, even earlier decisions like the
image filter and chapter fundraising change might have been byproducts of
that - it is hard to distinguish. Depending how closely you followed these
developments, the centers of power that came up with those suggestions
never changed, the discussions and arguments did, but they emerged from the
same place.

What you might perceive as control and power, is a limited sandbox provided
to give the appearance of power, for example, Sue placed her thoughts on
Meta before presenting them, between the hundreds of points on the talk
page, not a single thing was reconsidered, the board unanimously approved.
Your own meeting with the FDC, a hand-picked committee proposed and formed
by the same group, with the presence of two board members, in WMF offices,
who will eventually decide if they even want an FDC in 2 years.

There seems to be a nebulous mix between the executives, along with certain
board members, not all, perhaps even advisers and outside forces that
dictate whatever decisions are to be made, for everyone. Maybe this is a
particular area where transparency would be appreciated. Given that
individual board votes are made public now, there aren't a lot of instances
where board members disagree, if ever, with whatever the Executives provide
them. Most of these decisions rarely try and conflict the wider editor base
directly, as learnt from some past instances. To clarify I'm only talking
about where these ideas are proposed and conceptualized, not what follows,
the process of complaint, feedback and the eventual approval. There is no
recourse for challenging these changes, no other side of the argument, no
veto power, perhaps that's what the aim of this exercise ought to be.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation

[Anders Wennersten]

Thanks. Even while admiring Sue and all the good she does, I share your 
view that a lot of (too much?) "power" is centered around her as a person.


For a new enterprise an entrepreneur if often a good thing to have in 
the beginning, but as the organization matures it is often optimal that 
at  some moment in time the entrepreneurial type of leadership is 
shifted to a more traditional one that in our case should be 
characterized by the non-hierarchical culture with a multitude of point 
of influence as in the community


But should we not then discuss organizational development in this 
direction? And repeating (harping?) myself, I see the model I have sen 
in FDC (and earlier ChapCom) as something that can be transferred to 
other areas of activities and that this  will make the Movement less 
dependent on a central person, and perhaps in the end can also give the 
Board the opportunity to put more energy in the important strategic 
issues that should be its key role and which also will make the Movement 
less dependent on on single person


Anders
for my merits see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anders_Wennersten 
I actually believe it was my merits which made me become one of the 
members of FDC not a single persons patronage





Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 19:38:

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:
Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 16:12:




There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are.

Regards

  I do not understand what you refer to in this statement. Could you

please elaborate what you believe is the centers of power?


Sure, let's see. You questioned who has the power to decide, as opposed to
Nemo's analogy of a rubber-stamping hall. Centers of power, are dominant
forces that define a particular time and decide the overall direction. They
influence rather than give the appearance of direct interaction. In this
context, I was pointing out that these ideas are conceptualized by a small
minority in private, suggestions like let's have an FDC, let's remove
fellowships, cut spending and narrow focus, even earlier decisions like the
image filter and chapter fundraising change might have been byproducts of
that - it is hard to distinguish. Depending how closely you followed these
developments, the centers of power that came up with those suggestions
never changed, the discussions and arguments did, but they emerged from the
same place.

What you might perceive as control and power, is a limited sandbox provided
to give the appearance of power, for example, Sue placed her thoughts on
Meta before presenting them, between the hundreds of points on the talk
page, not a single thing was reconsidered, the board unanimously approved.
Your own meeting with the FDC, a hand-picked committee proposed and formed
by the same group, with the presence of two board members, in WMF offices,
who will eventually decide if they even want an FDC in 2 years.

There seems to be a nebulous mix between the executives, along with certain
board members, not all, perhaps even advisers and outside forces that
dictate whatever decisions are to be made, for everyone. Maybe this is a
particular area where transparency would be appreciated. Given that
individual board votes are made public now, there aren't a lot of instances
where board members disagree, if ever, with whatever the Executives provide
them. Most of these decisions rarely try and conflict the wider editor base
directly, as learnt from some past instances. To clarify I'm only talking
about where these ideas are proposed and conceptualized, not what follows,
the process of complaint, feedback and the eventual approval. There is no
recourse for challenging these changes, no other side of the argument, no
veto power, perhaps that's what the aim of this exercise ought to be.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Board portal drafted on meta

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi all,

not sure if I'm the only one. But too often I've gone mad while seeking for
essential information regarding the Board. If it's dates, composition of
committees, whatever. Some information is on meta, some on the foundation's
wiki, and some is well kept only in somebody's head (whoever that is). And
we are not really good in keeping our own history. It is so hard to find
former compositions, initiatives or fundamental discussions. Could be a
project of its own maybe.

The ongoing discussion started by Lodewijk reminds me of an older idea, a
starting point like a portal. And here it is:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Board_portal

It's quite ugly and only a rough draft yet. It needs helping hands to
become nicer and as informative as you want it to be. And I ask you to
help. Please let me know which information you want to find there. What is
missing, what needs more explanation. Help is appreciated, please feel free
to add items, edit, rearrange and reformat to make it smarter and nicer.

Resolutions, policies and charters as part of the organization's core
decisions are published on the foundation's wiki, and that's fine as far as
they are findable. A lot of other things can and will be done on meta. Both
parts can be collected on the portal and I hope it can help to provide
easier access to what is going on.

Regards, Alice.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Launch of Wikivoyage

[James Heilman]

Hey All

WikiVoyage could potential launch in beta Nov 6th, 2012 on WMF servers. We
have an issue surrounding moving images over to Commons (ie they will not
all be their for a least a few weeks and thus some/most images will be red
links). We are having a straw poll on if we should deal with images before
a "beta" opening or defer any opening until after the images have been
moved. Please weight in here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Launch

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l