Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Anthony Cole]

Matt, here
,
Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.

Anthony Cole 


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:

> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>
>> - how can this take place
>> - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>> future,
>> - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>> board
>>
>>   The Florida statute(
>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>> other
>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>> or grouping.
>>
>
> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
> apply for the same reason.
>
> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
> possible why he was removed.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

[Ruslan]

Answering your questions:

   1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
   included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
   matter.) The full reference is
   http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
   2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
   included.

Ruslan

2015-12-28 19:50 GMT+03:00 Shlomi Fish :

> Hi all,
>
> in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a
> single-player card game, that became popular after being included in
> some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about
> it
> used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively
> short
> sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it.
> However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or
> "non-Encyclopaedic".
>
> Right now there's only this section -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks
> about the
> fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
>
> I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a
> "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers
> (including
> I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the
> sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
>
> Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists,
> then
> at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
>
> *
>
> http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper-Paper.pdf
>
> * There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
> fc-solve-discuss
> Yahoo Group:
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/1388
>
> The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000
> Microsoft
> FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were
> written
> outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less
> fashionable
> there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were
> written
> by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the
> first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be
> impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
>
> Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to
> verify
> that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential
> future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of
> my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4
> minutes.[Verification]
>
> ===
>
> Now my questions are:
>
> 1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
> source
> that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
>
> 2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
> are
> hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for
> "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question
> does not mention them at all.
>
> ===
>
> Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts.
> As you
> can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the
> hoops
> one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
>
> [Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not
> verified/proved
> as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
> , so
> there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that
> I
> did write some automated tests for them.
>
> --
> -
> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality
>
> The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
> Hubris.
> — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar?

[Asaf Bartov]

You don't need permission or consensus to create or award barnstars. Be
bold.

A.
On Dec 30, 2015 6:39 PM, "Tito Dutta"  wrote:

> Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I
> thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list. I also thought
> to give him a barnstar for this. But, we do not have any "Wikimedia Mailing
> list barnstar"
>
> Should we create one? What do you think? If it sounds okay, someone of us
> can go ahead and create Template:Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar on En WP
> (and preferably on Meta also).
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[rupert THURNER]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> Matt, here
> ,
> Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.
>
> Anthony Cole 
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2015 07:19 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>>
>>> there are bigger questions than why like;
>>>
>>> - how can this take place
>>> - how can the community ensure its representatives independence in the
>>> future,
>>> - what effect will this have on other elected representatives on the
>>> board
>>>
>>>   The Florida statute(
>>> https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 ) referred
>>> to earlier says that If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or
>>> other
>>> organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the
>>> director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit,
>>> or grouping.
>>>
>>
>> IANAL, but I believe that clause does not apply.  There are no "members of
>> that class, chapter, unit, or grouping." because there are no members at
>> all (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP).
>> It is also under "2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the
>> director was elected or appointed by the members." which also does not
>> apply for the same reason.
>>
>> To be clear, I believe the board's action was legal, but I believe that
>> ethically they should state whether it was for cause, and if at all
>> possible why he was removed.

do the clauses from 617.0808 apply at all - as the bylaws explicitly
specify removal? "Trustees .. are understood to act as fiduciaries
with regard to the Foundation". "The Board will approve candidates who
receive the most votes". " Trustee may be removed, with or without
cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees".  the election page states
it like this: "Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity
to elect three candidates to a two-year term which will expire in
2017." the community is a class in the sense of 617.0808, and would
apply if the bylaws do not specify removal, isn't it?

jimmy wales btw wrote on his talk page "... this was a removal for
cause" and "I do not support any changes to the bylaws around the
composition of the board at this time. There is a very unhealthy and
plainly false view among some in the community that elected board
members are more supportive of the community than appointed. It
actually doesn't turn out that way in practice, and with good reason.
All board members have a fiduciary duty to the organization, which
means that caring about the community - the lifeblood of the
organization - comes naturally to everyone." :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=revision=697407275=697403591

the whole story reminds me on what josh wrote in the ny times months ago:
The election — a record 5,000 voters turned out, nearly three times
the number from the previous election — was a rebuke to the status
quo; all three incumbents up for re-election were defeated, replaced
by critics of the superprotect measures. Two other members will leave
the 10-member board at the end of this year.
http://nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html

rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Peter Southwood]

I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming, just as 
a matter of principle.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav M. Blanter
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF 
> board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out, 
> being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term 
> political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
> 
> Fae

Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would run at 
the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately removed from the 
board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of reasons, but I would 
seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Andreas Kolbe]

Patricio,

Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
how and where it is defined for both current and former members?

Best,
Andreas

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Dear Patricio,
>
> Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
> this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
> surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
> this:
>
> "Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
> not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
> conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"
>
> Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
> this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
> members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
> step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
> expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
> this.
>
> I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> > Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
> >
> > I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to
> the
> > discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for
> the
> > decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> > and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome
> ahead
> > of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> > together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> > respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> > time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> > duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> > this decision as we would in others.
> >
> > I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a
> difference
> > of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> > other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> > understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> > as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> > essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm
> that
> > this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> > influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
> >
> > Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> > law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered),
> members
> > of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections
> are
> > then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> > the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the
> ability
> > to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working
> environment
> > required to be effective.
> >
> > As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand
> how
> > important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> > want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> > commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> > representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> > change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> > direction and strategy.
> >
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> > From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> > sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive
> part
> > of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> > collaboration with him.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >Patricio
> > --
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Fæ]

On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> Patricio,
> Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and
> how and where it is defined for both current and former members?
> Best,
> Andreas

Anyone who has had trustee training can answer this. No trustee of any
charity/NGO is under a legally binding confidentiality agreement, for
good ethical reasons. Trustees *must* be free to blow the whistle for
the long term good of the organization without fear of petty civil
proceedings to shut them up. Trustees can *choose* to resolve any
issues whether personal or organizational behind closed doors, but
they are always free to act in a way that follows their ethics, even
though in practice this often means they will resign from the board at
the same time.

Jimmy Wales has seen fit to express his personal views about James in
public in a transparent and honest way; and James and the remaining
trustees are free to do exactly the same thing. There's no "Jimmy
clause" that our movement agreed to.

If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:

On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:



If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.

Fae


Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would 
run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately 
removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number 
of reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if 
he runs.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Patricio Lorente]

Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
this decision as we would in others.

I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.

Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.

As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
direction and strategy.

We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
with the 2015 Elections Committee.

From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
collaboration with him.

Thank you,

   Patricio
--
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Peter Southwood]

You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However if they 
don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of 
crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line, 
whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for 
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after 
what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot 
(no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to 
nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next 
job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the 
Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to 
realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling 
on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Peter Southwood]

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Rjd0060
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for 
> cause, or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things, after 
what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can put a lot 
(no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles you to 
nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at McDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't get you your next 
job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if not critical) to the 
Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called "community" needs to 
realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is piling 
on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] We need to talk about the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment

[Andreas Kolbe]

That's a very good point. Bringing the two pledges in line with each other
in the way Cristian suggests would make sense to me. Board members should
be free to act in line with their conscience. It shouldn't be the case that
they cannot speak openly about any issue in which they disagreed with other
board members; that wouldn't seem in line with the movement's values of
free speech and transparency.

In fact, reviewing the Pledge of Personal Commitment board members are
required to sign,[1] I confess I don't quite understand in which ways
current or former board members are actually restricted from speaking
freely about any matter related to the movement and its work.

I understand that board members only sign this Pledge of Personal
Commitment, and that there isn't a specific or separate non-disclosure
agreement. The text of the Pledge doesn't mention non-disclosure explicitly
(although it may well be implicit in some of the phrasings).

The Pledge also seems to say nothing about how board members should conduct
themselves once their term has expired.

The Pledge begins "As a member of the board ...", then goes on to say "I
will conduct my activities with the board of trustees ...", "In every
instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation ...", etc., implying
that this is a pledge that board members have to observe *while in office*.

Is there anything else board members have to sign that has a bearing on
what they are permitted to say after their term is over?

I would be very grateful if someone with more insight than me could
explain, for everyone's benefit, in which ways the free speech of current
and former board members is restricted.


[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This discussion is somewhat inspired by what recently happened with
> WMF Board of Trustees[1]. Please note that I was to respect the
> request from the board (and James himself) to have some more time to
> review the situation before providing more details about the recent
> resolution.
>
> In some sense, I am following what James said in an email[2]:
> ---
> I have done what I believe is in the best interest of our movement.
> ---
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation requires every board member to sign a "Pledge
> of personal commitment"[3], in one passage it says:
> «In every instance in which I represent the Wikimedia Foundation, I
> will conduct my activities in a manner to best promote the interests
> of Wikimedia Foundation.»
>
> Compare this with the "FDC Pledge of Personal Commitment" signed by
> FDC members[4]:
> «I, [name], pledge to faithfully pursue the mission and goals of the
> Wikimedia movement, namely to empower and engage people around the
> world to collect and develop educational content under a free license
> or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> globally. The FDC makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees
> regarding the allocation of funds to support the mission goals of the
> Wikimedia movement, and I therefore recognize my responsibility to
> maintain the highest level of public confidence and trust.»
>
> As a former FDC member I very much prefer the formulation adopted in
> the FDC pledge rather than in the BoT pledge.
>
> I think (and I have been thinking this for a while) that the Pledge of
> commitment for trustees of WMF should mention the movement as well. In
> some sense I am stating the obvious, but I would like the idea that
> what constitutes "the best choice for the movement" takes priority
> over "the best choice for the WMF", and this is board members pledge
> to do.
>
> I know that "doing what is best for the WMF" may be a legal
> requirements for WMF board members, but I honestly do not think that
> what is the best interest for the movement and what is the best
> interest for WMF would ever be actually in conflict. In other words, I
> would take the discussion of what constitutes a decision made with the
> best interest of the movement in mind to be a debatable choice over
> difference of views rather than a case of breaching the pledge because
> some action may produce short term harm to the WMF (and thus be
> breaching the pledge of commitment for BoT as it is written now) but
> greater good in the middle/long term.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cristian
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-30/News_and_notes
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Pledge_of_Commitment_and_Conflict_of_Interest_Questionnaire#FDC_Pledge_of_Personal_Commitment
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Lodewijk]

Dear Patricio,

Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in
this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or
surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is
this:

"Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were
not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling [Trustee
conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality]"

Are we to expect an actual explanation still with the actual reasons why
this decision was taken? Because this goes little further than the staff
members that 'leave for personal reasons'. When a significant and serious
step like this is taken, to remove a community selected board member, I do
expect a better explanation from the board towards the electorate than
this.

I am looking forward to more - from you, from James or anyone else.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>Patricio
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
or not!?
On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" 
wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
>
> I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
> discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for the
> decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome ahead
> of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> this decision as we would in others.
>
> I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a difference
> of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm that
> this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
>
> Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
> of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
> then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
> to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
> required to be effective.
>
> As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand how
> important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> direction and strategy.
>
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
> From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive part
> of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> collaboration with him.
>
> Thank you,
>
>Patricio
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi Patricio,
a little question to understand.

Does it means that the majority of the board can dismiss the minority 
for some reasons?


I understand the effectiveness, but this sentence is a little bit critical.

Kind regards

On 31.12.2015 14:02, Patricio Lorente wrote:


Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered), members
of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections are
then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the ability
to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working environment
required to be effective.




--
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Rjd0060]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
> or not!?
>

If they'd like to.  But if not, no.  So people who keep demanding things,
after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we can
put a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.

We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitles
you to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount at
McDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won't
get you your next job.  Yes - our position as volunteers is important (if
not critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so called
"community" needs to realize their boundaries.

People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of what
happened) are showing a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure
- and perhaps other things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else is
piling on in opposition.

-- 

Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

[Nathan]

The 30 post limit came about in a different era, when the list had problems
at a greater scale. I don't see any issues with post frequency recently
that should have received moderator response. You are referring to GerardM,
but the majority of his posts have been to a single thread. I can't speak
to whether that has interfered with that particular thread, but it
certainly hasn't presented any problems to the list as a whole.

By the way, Erik Zachte keeps statistics:
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html

Much easier than skimming through a list of posts and trying to count them
up.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Tim Landscheidt]

"Peter Southwood"  wrote:

> You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to
> respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our
> feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do
> not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line,
> whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
> […]

By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in
this campaign, so they seem to be on the right track.  If
volunteer editors would leave in a significant number, the
effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some-
one to edit and update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia
alive, don't you?"

All threats against the board or WMF in general are power-
less unless there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia for
volunteers that is /better/; at the moment there is not even
a clone that provides just the same data.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming,
> just as a matter of principle.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>


According to applicable Florida law,[1]

(f) Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to stand for
reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are elected.

[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808





> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
> Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>
> On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
> > On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
> > board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
> > being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
> > political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
> >
> > Fae
>
> Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would
> run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately
> removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of
> reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

[Fæ]

The 30-post soft limit for this email is not being applied. I recall
in the past that individuals were warned and even put on moderation;
ensuring that no individual overwhelms this list with their one
viewpoint. I raised this with the list moderators on 4th December, but
have yet to receive a reply.

Anyone interested can check the figures for the last two months:
* November - one person posted 39 emails to the list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-November/author.html
* December - the same person has posted 33 times so far
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/author.html

Can the list administrators please make a New Year resolution to start
warning all users exceeding the 30 post limit, and to apply long term
moderation if they persist in pushing their viewpoint aggressively
this way?

If anyone thinks the 30-post limit is an unreasonable expectation,
then they are free to test the waters with a proposal to make it 40...

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

[Ziko van Dijk]

I very much agree with Fae on this.
Certainly, some people will always post more than others, e.g. because they
have a specific task in the movement. But often I wonder whether a post on
this list was really necessary. For example, sometimes it makes sense not
to react immediately to another post but wait some time for other reactions
and then answer to all of them in one post. That also keeps the thread
tidier for other people to follow the conversations.
Kind regards
Ziko




Am Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2015 schrieb Nathan :

> The 30 post limit came about in a different era, when the list had problems
> at a greater scale. I don't see any issues with post frequency recently
> that should have received moderator response. You are referring to GerardM,
> but the majority of his posts have been to a single thread. I can't speak
> to whether that has interfered with that particular thread, but it
> certainly hasn't presented any problems to the list as a whole.
>
> By the way, Erik Zachte keeps statistics:
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
>
> Much easier than skimming through a list of posts and trying to count them
> up.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Techman224]

But then again, these are not direct elections. The elections we have are just 
recommendations, and the board appoints community trustees based on those 
recommendations.

Techman224

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net > wrote:
> 
>> I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming,
>> just as a matter of principle.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
> 
> 
> According to applicable Florida law,[1]
> 
> (f) Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to stand for
> reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are elected.
> 
> [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/617.0808 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>> 
>> On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote:
>>> On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>> 
>>> If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF
>>> board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out,
>>> being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or short-term
>>> political reasons this time around is no bar to re-running.
>>> 
>>> Fae
>> 
>> Indeed, this is a point I would like to understand: Imagine James would
>> run at the coming elections and wins - would he be again immediately
>> removed from the board? I did not vote for him last time, for a number of
>> reasons, but I would seriously consider voting for him this time if he runs.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11292 - Release Date: 12/31/15
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 
> 
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 
> , 
>  >

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Pine W]

Regarding: "at the moment there is not even a clone that provides just the
same data.": creating an alternative host for a fork of Wikipedia is
possible, although labor-intensive and a bit capital-intensive, and it's
far from ideal. I feel that at this time the information available about
the governance of WMF, while deeply concerning, is short of the threshold
at which I would feel comfortable pursuing this option.

A reminder that we'll have 2 new trustees starting in January, and there
will be an election in 2016 for the affiliate-appointed trustees' seats. As
Yoda wisely said, "Always in motion is the future."

I'm contemplating a response to Patricio's email. I'm currently in the
difficult position of figuring out who to trust. It may take another day or
so for me to sift through my thoughts.

Pine

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> "Peter Southwood"  wrote:
>
> > You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to
> > respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our
> > feet - or not.  The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do
> > not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line,
> > whatever they do is going to annoy somebody.
> > […]
>
> By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in
> this campaign, so they seem to be on the right track.  If
> volunteer editors would leave in a significant number, the
> effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
> development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some-
> one to edit and update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia
> alive, don't you?"
>
> All threats against the board or WMF in general are power-
> less unless there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia for
> volunteers that is /better/; at the moment there is not even
> a clone that provides just the same data.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Kevin Gorman]

Patricio -

I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to
the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared
for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate
immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.  Even if
he hadn't announced it himself, it should have been anticipated that people
would realize the removal had occurred - I'm aware of relatively few
WMF-related matters, even at a BoT level, that don't eventually leaked if
they aren't promptly announced.  When you see a candidate who just lost his
election giving a concession speech, he didn't write it after he heard the
election results - he likely had it 99% finalized days or weeks before he
lost the election (and this is true even of candidates who really, truly
expected to win their election.  I was an unpaid WMF comms intern some
years ago, and even then we regularly drafted statements in advance of it
being clear they were needed.  Since WMF comms has only become more
professionalized since my time there, I'm positive that this is still
standard practice for major issues for WMF comms. It might be a good idea
to speak with Katherine or someone else in WMF comms to guide the board in
best practices in communication on issues like this in the future.

Additionally, I'd like to correct you on another point: Florida trustees
don't have an absolute duty of confidentiality.  I suspected this given the
training I was given before being put on the board of a decently large body
incorporated in California, but just confirmed it with a Florida lawyer.
WMF Trustees have fidicuiary duties to the WMF; in practice, the two main
details this encompasses are (a) a duty of loyalty (an obligation to put
the interests of WMF above the interests of themselves and (b) a duty of
care (an obligation to carry out their trustee-related duties in a way that
an ordinary and prudent person would carry out the management of their own
affairs - or if you're a lawyer etc, a an obligation to carry out your
trustee-related duties in a way that a lawyer of average skill and prudence
would.)  Many other duties derive from these two, but don't override them.
Frequently, a duty of confidentiality is involved - for instance,
disclosing material that would hurt WMF in an ongoing lawsuit against WMF
would be a violation of your obligation to maintain confidentiality - but
that obligation only exists (barring an outside contract with another
organization) as a derivative of your duties of loyalty and your duties of
care.  If you believe that prompt disclosure of the details of whatever
happen w/r/t James is in the interests of WMF (examples of why it might be
in the interests of WMF: failing to promptly disclose as many details as
reasonably possible could significantly damage comunity trust in WMF, or
generate significant bad press for WMF,) then you most likely don't only
not have a duty of confidentiality that stops you from closing, you may
actually have a positive duty to disclose depending on how significant you
believe that consequences of failing to disclose would be.

I don't have sekrit knowledge about why James was removed, but knowing him,
and reading your last email, I'm going to venture a guess that James may
have wanted WMF board meetings to be more transparent, or he may have
wanted to seek the counsel of community members not on the board about
issues in front of the board.  In fact, he may have felt that failing to
seek outside advice on some issues or failing to make WMF board meetings in
general would have represented a violation of his fidicuiary duties of
loyalty and care.  I really hope that the Board comes out with a more
complete statement in the immediate future, because speculation about is
going on during a high tension situation like this is never a good thing.
Dariusz would never have opposed his removal if it was 'for cause' if that
cause was something like James violating his fidicuiary duties in the sense
of leaking sensitive details to the press, leaking info to people suing
WMF, engaging in outright theft, etc. I have a feeling that James' removal
did relate to him desiring increased transparency, and that does make me
distinctly nervous,

Andreas: by my reading of that, it would mean that even if he were a
directly elected trustee (and the BoT sees to suggest that he wasn't a
directly elected trustee, but just a community recommended trustee that the
WMF BoT chose to accept) he wouldn't be able to stand in special elections
- e.g., an election to replace his own vacant seat - but seems to suggest
that he would be able to stand in the next set of regular community
elections.

Patricio: I would really invite you to talk with Katherine about how best
to handle board communications issues in the future.  This is something
where much more detailed statements should have been prepared in advance,
in case they were needed - if it turned out they weren't needed, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[George Herbert]

TLDR version:

We are not yet convinced James was not removed for doing what he was elected to 
do.

I have good faith in everyone involved, and the capacity and intent to withhold 
judgement for a while, but the explanations so far have not helped.  This is 
not transparent enough.  As everyone who's been around for a while knows, lack 
of transparency will cause strife worse than any good faith disagreement.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> 
> Patricio -
> 
> I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to
> the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared
> for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate
> immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.  Even if
> he hadn't announced it himself, it should have been anticipated that people
> would realize the removal had occurred - I'm aware of relatively few
> WMF-related matters, even at a BoT level, that don't eventually leaked if
> they aren't promptly announced.  When you see a candidate who just lost his
> election giving a concession speech, he didn't write it after he heard the
> election results - he likely had it 99% finalized days or weeks before he
> lost the election (and this is true even of candidates who really, truly
> expected to win their election.  I was an unpaid WMF comms intern some
> years ago, and even then we regularly drafted statements in advance of it
> being clear they were needed.  Since WMF comms has only become more
> professionalized since my time there, I'm positive that this is still
> standard practice for major issues for WMF comms. It might be a good idea
> to speak with Katherine or someone else in WMF comms to guide the board in
> best practices in communication on issues like this in the future.
> 
> Additionally, I'd like to correct you on another point: Florida trustees
> don't have an absolute duty of confidentiality.  I suspected this given the
> training I was given before being put on the board of a decently large body
> incorporated in California, but just confirmed it with a Florida lawyer.
> WMF Trustees have fidicuiary duties to the WMF; in practice, the two main
> details this encompasses are (a) a duty of loyalty (an obligation to put
> the interests of WMF above the interests of themselves and (b) a duty of
> care (an obligation to carry out their trustee-related duties in a way that
> an ordinary and prudent person would carry out the management of their own
> affairs - or if you're a lawyer etc, a an obligation to carry out your
> trustee-related duties in a way that a lawyer of average skill and prudence
> would.)  Many other duties derive from these two, but don't override them.
> Frequently, a duty of confidentiality is involved - for instance,
> disclosing material that would hurt WMF in an ongoing lawsuit against WMF
> would be a violation of your obligation to maintain confidentiality - but
> that obligation only exists (barring an outside contract with another
> organization) as a derivative of your duties of loyalty and your duties of
> care.  If you believe that prompt disclosure of the details of whatever
> happen w/r/t James is in the interests of WMF (examples of why it might be
> in the interests of WMF: failing to promptly disclose as many details as
> reasonably possible could significantly damage comunity trust in WMF, or
> generate significant bad press for WMF,) then you most likely don't only
> not have a duty of confidentiality that stops you from closing, you may
> actually have a positive duty to disclose depending on how significant you
> believe that consequences of failing to disclose would be.
> 
> I don't have sekrit knowledge about why James was removed, but knowing him,
> and reading your last email, I'm going to venture a guess that James may
> have wanted WMF board meetings to be more transparent, or he may have
> wanted to seek the counsel of community members not on the board about
> issues in front of the board.  In fact, he may have felt that failing to
> seek outside advice on some issues or failing to make WMF board meetings in
> general would have represented a violation of his fidicuiary duties of
> loyalty and care.  I really hope that the Board comes out with a more
> complete statement in the immediate future, because speculation about is
> going on during a high tension situation like this is never a good thing.
> Dariusz would never have opposed his removal if it was 'for cause' if that
> cause was something like James violating his fidicuiary duties in the sense
> of leaking sensitive details to the press, leaking info to people suing
> WMF, engaging in outright theft, etc. I have a feeling that James' removal
> did relate to him desiring increased transparency, and that does make me
> distinctly nervous,
> 
> Andreas: by my reading of that, it would mean that even if he were a
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Sam Klein]

I just want to echo this.

James, I do know you personally, and am better for it.  Thank you for your
tireless efforts to improve information and health around the world, and for
the thought you give to how the projects can flourish and multiply.

Warmly,
Sj


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>  James,
>
> We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your
> reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a
> man of coherent and consistent principles.
>
> I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing
> contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work
> that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in
> the geographies most impacted.
>
> I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My
> thoughts are with you.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Marcin Cieslak]

On 2015-12-31, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> initiative.
>
> I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.

You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero 
initiative.

Saper


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/31/2015 08:02 AM, Patricio Lorente wrote:

Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.

I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the
discussions on this thread.


Thank you for providing a clearer picture.  I understand the board 
members are bound in what exactly they can say.


I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with the decision 
you made, but I have a better understanding of its basis.


Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 12/31/2015 04:07 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:

Matt, here
,
Jimmy says this was a removal for cause.


Thanks, I appreciate you forwarding this.

Matt Flaschen


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Craig Franklin]

Jimbo has stated on Jimbo-talk that this was a removal for cause:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407200

He also mentions on that page that he and others tried to talk Heilman into
resigning quietly, but he chose to make the BoT push him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407110

Given this, it's entirely unsurprising that he didn't see a need to aid the
trustees by announcing his departure on a timetable convenient to them.
I'm actually a little shocked that Patricio and Jimbo didn't see that
coming and seem shocked that it happened.

Cheers,
Craig

On 1 January 2016 at 00:02, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause,
> or not!?
> On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent
> > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting
> > Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion.
> >
> > I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to
> the
> > discussions on this thread. As many of you know, we did not intend for
> the
> > decision to become public the way it did. We planned to have a discussion
> > and decision in the meeting, but could not be certain of the outcome
> ahead
> > of the final vote. Since the meeting, we have taken our time to work
> > together to make sure the information we share will be accurate,
> > respectful, and informative to the greatest extent possible. At the same
> > time, there is a limit to what the Board can share. We have fiduciary
> > duties, which include Board confidentiality, and we must respect them in
> > this decision as we would in others.
> >
> > I want to be very clear that the Board decision was not about a
> difference
> > of opinion on a matter of WMF direction or strategy between James and the
> > other Trustees. Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> > multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> > responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> > Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> > understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations. We have a duty
> > as a Board to ensure we all abide by our roles and responsibilities as an
> > essential condition for effective governance. I also want to reaffirm
> that
> > this decision was made internally, by the Board, without any outside
> > influence, and according to the process outlined in our Bylaws.
> >
> > Under the Wikimedia Foundation’s Bylaws, and, in accordance with Florida
> > law (where, as a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is registered),
> members
> > of the Board who are selected through community or affiliate elections
> are
> > then appointed to the Board by the existing members. Since all members of
> > the Board are appointed by the Board itself, the Board retains the
> ability
> > to manage its composition as necessary to maintain the working
> environment
> > required to be effective.
> >
> > As someone who was appointed through a community process, I understand
> how
> > important it is to have strong voices from the community on our Board. I
> > want to be absolutely clear that this decision does not change our
> > commitment to engaging with a diverse, talented, opinionated, and
> > representative group of leaders to serve on our Board. It also does not
> > change our commitment to encouraging and hearing different voices on
> > direction and strategy.
> >
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> > From our viewpoint, our actions around the removal are concluded. We
> > sincerely hope that James will continue to be an active, constructive
> part
> > of the Wikimedia movement. I personally look forward to continuing
> > collaboration with him.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >Patricio
> > --
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Arjuna Rao Chavala]

Hi Patricio,


I am saddened to hear that the discussions about governance had to result
in removal of a board member.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Patricio Lorente <
patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had
> multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
> responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
> Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common
> understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.
>

It would be useful for the community to know the revised code of conduct,
responsibilities, which the board has agreed on. If such a thing is not
available, it would also help if you can inform the date by which it is
available.  This  would also help for any potential candidates for the next
election/appointment.

Best regards

Arjuna Rao Chavala
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:
> You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero 
> initiative.

From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia
Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics.
The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second
group negatively discriminates a part of population.

I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola:
they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their
products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes,
"reduced price" could be zero.

On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic
importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number
of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with
a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in
Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before
or after you spend your data limit).

However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it
creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of
Internet. That's quite serious.

I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's
Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your
marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with
their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of
Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people
capable to buy their software.

Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
richer and they won't need this kind of service.

Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without
WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we
shouldn't do that, of course.

There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative,
but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not
the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become
quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited
internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip
into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.

So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia
organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:

* Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a
permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position
is based on external factors, not on the design created by the
companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on
preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to
various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario,
we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And
Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.

* It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia
organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit
companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be
relevant.

* Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
and the rest of our global super-movement.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi,

Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely
criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the
violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked
Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms

http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-service/

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On 1 January 2016 at 11:20, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:
> > You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia
> Zero initiative.
>
> From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia
> Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics.
> The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second
> group negatively discriminates a part of population.
>
> I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
> something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola:
> they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their
> products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes,
> "reduced price" could be zero.
>
> On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic
> importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number
> of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with
> a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in
> Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before
> or after you spend your data limit).
>
> However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it
> creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of
> Internet. That's quite serious.
>
> I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's
> Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your
> marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with
> their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of
> Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people
> capable to buy their software.
>
> Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> richer and they won't need this kind of service.
>
> Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without
> WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we
> shouldn't do that, of course.
>
> There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative,
> but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not
> the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become
> quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited
> internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip
> into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.
>
> So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia
> organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:
>
> * Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a
> permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position
> is based on external factors, not on the design created by the
> companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on
> preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to
> various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario,
> we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And
> Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.
>
> * It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia
> organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit
> companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be
> relevant.
>
> * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> and the rest of our global super-movement.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Bodhisattwa Mandal
Administrator, Bengali Wikipedia

''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free
access to the sum 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Peter Southwood]

I agree.
The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away with 
alienating the crowd for a long time, until it reaches a tipping point, when 
the reaction becomes catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will 
be a large number of people who will say they told them so, but it may well be 
too late to reassemble the debris. Something will survive , but maybe not 
Wikipedia as we know it. How far we are from the tipping point is anybody's 
guess. At present the vast majority of the crowd are probably totally unaware 
of the problems, but I personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia 
against them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was a major 
walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the show on the road. Will the 
level of donations remain viable if the general public witnesses a meltdown? 
Would you bet on it?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Tim Landscheidt
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 9:20 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

"Peter Southwood"  wrote:

> You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However 
> if they don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not.  The 
> fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. 
> They tread a delicate line, whatever they do is going to annoy 
> somebody.
> […]

By mid-December, they had crowdsourced USD 18.000.000 in this campaign, so they 
seem to be on the right track.  If volunteer editors would leave in a 
significant number, the effect would be the same that we have seen for MediaWiki
development: "We need to raise /more/ money to employ some- one to edit and 
update articles.  You want to keep Wikipedia alive, don't you?"

All threats against the board or WMF in general are power- less unless there is 
a viable alternative to Wikipedia for volunteers that is /better/; at the 
moment there is not even a clone that provides just the same data.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11298 - Release Date: 12/31/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,