Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Gnangarra]

>
> (Just reminding that Nat was not elected by the community, as Gnangarra

seems to think, but by the affiliates.)


Taking responsibility for a gross failure does in fact mean accepting and
acknowledging you failed, and then stating what you intend to do to rectify
that failing.

I know Nat was elected by the Affiliates, her seat is one those that are
there to represent the community.   I also know that Nat insulted an ESEAP
affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
nomination.I would also point out that Affiliates are there to
represent the communities they serve as well.   While I called for her
resignation I hold no expectation that it will actually take place given
past interactions, in fact there's very few people who have gathered power
within this "movement" that would actually willingly stand aside because of
a principle.

There is a greater problem within the "movement" than just The Board,
changing names isnt going to change those problems.  There are many fine,
extremely well skilled people with lots to offer the movement that
arent from Europe or the US but we have a blind spot to those
communities, its almost as if the movement is acting as 17th century
colonial entity.

Wikimedia is greater than Wikipedia which is just one of our many parts. We
need to embrace all of those parts if we are to grow, instead of clutching
onto one part we need to put effort into making the other parts household
names as well.  Wikipedia will always be just an encyclopaedia, we need to
take on the sum of all our parts because this "movement", this "community"
is greater than just an encyclopaedia if The Board cant see this then we
are in real trouble what ever the name becomes.

In a little bit of irony Asimovs Foundation also floundered because it
became focused on the encyclopaedia and nothing else mattered.

Boodar-wun


On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 08:46, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> (Just reminding that Nat was not elected by the community, as Gnangarra
> seems to think, but by the affiliates.)
>
> Jan-Bart de Vreede  escreveu no dia segunda,
> 22/06/2020 à(s) 17:26:
>
> >  Hi Gnangarra
> >
> > I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least
> > because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of
> > Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Quoting from the excellent Wikimedia Board Handbook(1)
> >
> > "WMF is an entrusted steward within the Wikimedia movement. The Board's
> > role (and legal obligation) is to oversee the management of the
> > organization and ensure that it fulfills its mission and responsibilities
> > as a steward. To help accomplish this, the Board maintains a strong
> > connection to the Wikimedia communities. For example, WMF's bylaws
> require
> > that a majority of Board seats (not including the Founder's seat and
> > non-member officer positions) be filled by candidates selected by the
> > communities and chapters, and appointed by the incumbent Board members -
> an
> > unusual requirement for a nonprofit board. Board members are often active
> > community members as well. That said, Board members have a fiduciary duty
> > to represent the overall WMF interests during their service on the Board
> –
> > not just the interests of chapters or certain parts of the communities. “
> >
> > So while the community certainly gets to elect board members, these board
> > members have obligations once they are appointed to the board. And yes:
> > that also means getting community input, but all board members should be
> > concerned with that, not just those elected by the community.
> >
> > Jan-Bart
> >
> > > On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:52, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > The choice is yours to resign because the The Board isnt considering
> the
> > > community as a key part of what we have created, or because you
> > > arent representing the community's voice on the Board.
> >
> >
> > 1)
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Fiduciary_duties
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Clinic #003 today at 08:00 UTC

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear Wikimedians,

A quick reminder that we will be having another Wikimedia Clinic open call
today, in about three hours, at 08:00 UTC.

The Wikimedia Clinics calls are open video calls (using Google Meet) where
any active Wikimedian is welcome to attend and ask questions or ask for
advice about whatever Wikimedia-related goal or problem they're working
on.You can also just share what you're working on and invite feedback, even
if you don't have a specific question. Or people can just connect to hang
out, or to offer their own experience to the people asking questions.

It's relaxed and informal. The calls are a Friendly space
. Attendees are
expected to:

   - Listen with patience and respect.
   - Share your experience, but remember others' contexts are very diverse,
   and may not match yours.
   - Be of service.

The Google Meet link is https://meet.google.com/hmb-hfjk-jtk

NOTE: I know the Branding project is still a topic of interest and debate
for many of you.  While you are welcome to bring it up during a clinic and
share thoughts with each other, I'm afraid this upcoming call won't have
new information from WMF's side beyond the last communication from the
Board, and those interested in further engagement on the topic would be
able to get more answers on the same general channels on Meta and the
Wikimedia-l mailing list they have already been using.  Again, the topic is
not taboo on the Wikimedia Clinic, but I do want to set expectations for
people who may only attend hoping to hear new information about it.

Cheers,

   A.

Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)

Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities

Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Deutschland: general assembly and new Supervisory Board

[Tito Dutta]

Hello,
Interesting change. Could you kindly give link to your updated bylaws
(either on the mailing list or please PM)?
Congratulations and good wishes

Thanks
Tito Dutta
Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
me over email or phone call.


On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 21:56, Lukas Mezger 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> On Sunday, Wikimedia Deutschland held its 25th and first-ever virtual
> general assembly with over 250 members attending.
>
> Our members elected a new Supervisory Board, which consists of 7 elected
> members:
>
> * Lukas Mezger (chair, re-elected)
>
> * Daniel Reisener (treasurer, re-elected)
>
> * Sabria David (re-elected)
>
> * Kilian Kluge (re-elected)
>
> * Christina Dinar
>
> * Valerie Mocker
>
> * Alice Wiegand
>
> Christina Dinar and Valerie Mocker are new to the board, so please join me
> in welcoming them as well as in welcoming back Alice Wiegand. We are
> particularly pleased that our measures to increase gender diversity have
> been successful and that our elected board now consists of four women and
> three men.
>
> I would like to wholeheartedly thank our departing elected board members
> Harald Krichel, Peter Dewald, and Marcus Cyron, and our departing appointed
> members Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr for the great work and their
> commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland over the past years.
>
> Sabine Zepp and Lenia Zinßer were elected as auditors. I would like to
> express my gratitude to our departing auditors Daniel Baur, who has been
> serving the association over so many years, and Lena Stammler.
>
> The general assembly also changed our bylaws to allow for virtual board
> meetings and remote board votes. Additionally, our members added a new rule
> concerning appointed officers to ensure that at least one third of the
> board is of non-male or non-female gender. The general assembly also
> approved changes to our strategy and formally approved of the board’s and
> the executive director’s actions for 2019.
>
> The new board will reconvene shortly to discuss Movement Strategy matters,
> among others, and I am very much looking forward to working together with
> the new team.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lukas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Deutschland: general assembly and new Supervisory Board

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks for this update, Lukas and all.
Congrats on the well-attended virtual assembly, I'm curious how it was
handled.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:26 PM Lukas Mezger 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> On Sunday, Wikimedia Deutschland held its 25th and first-ever virtual
> general assembly with over 250 members attending.
>
> Our members elected a new Supervisory Board, which consists of 7 elected
> members:
>
> * Lukas Mezger (chair, re-elected)
>
> * Daniel Reisener (treasurer, re-elected)
>
> * Sabria David (re-elected)
>
> * Kilian Kluge (re-elected)
>
> * Christina Dinar
>
> * Valerie Mocker
>
> * Alice Wiegand
>
> Christina Dinar and Valerie Mocker are new to the board, so please join me
> in welcoming them as well as in welcoming back Alice Wiegand. We are
> particularly pleased that our measures to increase gender diversity have
> been successful and that our elected board now consists of four women and
> three men.
>
> I would like to wholeheartedly thank our departing elected board members
> Harald Krichel, Peter Dewald, and Marcus Cyron, and our departing appointed
> members Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr for the great work and their
> commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland over the past years.
>
> Sabine Zepp and Lenia Zinßer were elected as auditors. I would like to
> express my gratitude to our departing auditors Daniel Baur, who has been
> serving the association over so many years, and Lena Stammler.
>
> The general assembly also changed our bylaws to allow for virtual board
> meetings and remote board votes. Additionally, our members added a new rule
> concerning appointed officers to ensure that at least one third of the
> board is of non-male or non-female gender. The general assembly also
> approved changes to our strategy and formally approved of the board’s and
> the executive director’s actions for 2019.
>
> The new board will reconvene shortly to discuss Movement Strategy matters,
> among others, and I am very much looking forward to working together with
> the new team.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lukas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

(Just reminding that Nat was not elected by the community, as Gnangarra
seems to think, but by the affiliates.)

Jan-Bart de Vreede  escreveu no dia segunda,
22/06/2020 à(s) 17:26:

>  Hi Gnangarra
>
> I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least
> because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of
> Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Quoting from the excellent Wikimedia Board Handbook(1)
>
> "WMF is an entrusted steward within the Wikimedia movement. The Board's
> role (and legal obligation) is to oversee the management of the
> organization and ensure that it fulfills its mission and responsibilities
> as a steward. To help accomplish this, the Board maintains a strong
> connection to the Wikimedia communities. For example, WMF's bylaws require
> that a majority of Board seats (not including the Founder's seat and
> non-member officer positions) be filled by candidates selected by the
> communities and chapters, and appointed by the incumbent Board members - an
> unusual requirement for a nonprofit board. Board members are often active
> community members as well. That said, Board members have a fiduciary duty
> to represent the overall WMF interests during their service on the Board –
> not just the interests of chapters or certain parts of the communities. “
>
> So while the community certainly gets to elect board members, these board
> members have obligations once they are appointed to the board. And yes:
> that also means getting community input, but all board members should be
> concerned with that, not just those elected by the community.
>
> Jan-Bart
>
> > On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:52, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > The choice is yours to resign because the The Board isnt considering the
> > community as a key part of what we have created, or because you
> > arent representing the community's voice on the Board.
>
>
> 1)
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Fiduciary_duties
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Dan Szymborski]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:26 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

>  Hi Gnangarra
>
> I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least
> because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of
> Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
>
Resigning is precisely what "taking full responsibility" entails here. So
then what does "taking full responsibility" mean if nothing is to change?

As for the community board seats, the board has arbitrarily changed both
term lengths and moved elections forward, again with no input from the
community. It's going to be *years* after the Fram incident until the
community gets to have any referendum on the actions, inactions, or
conflicts-of-interest among community-elected board members.

And people are absolutely entitled to call for the resignation of members
of the board that aren't community elected. That they're not directly
elected by the community does not cloister them from criticism by the
community. Are people under 18 or non-Americans not allowed to criticize
the president of the United States?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Deutschland: general assembly and new Supervisory Board

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Congratulations to all the newly elected members.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb Dutta.
(U: Marajozkee)
(Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity) 

> On 22-Jun-2020, at 9:56 PM, Lukas Mezger  wrote:
> 
> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> 
> On Sunday, Wikimedia Deutschland held its 25th and first-ever virtual
> general assembly with over 250 members attending.
> 
> Our members elected a new Supervisory Board, which consists of 7 elected
> members:
> 
> * Lukas Mezger (chair, re-elected)
> 
> * Daniel Reisener (treasurer, re-elected)
> 
> * Sabria David (re-elected)
> 
> * Kilian Kluge (re-elected)
> 
> * Christina Dinar
> 
> * Valerie Mocker
> 
> * Alice Wiegand
> 
> Christina Dinar and Valerie Mocker are new to the board, so please join me
> in welcoming them as well as in welcoming back Alice Wiegand. We are
> particularly pleased that our measures to increase gender diversity have
> been successful and that our elected board now consists of four women and
> three men.
> 
> I would like to wholeheartedly thank our departing elected board members
> Harald Krichel, Peter Dewald, and Marcus Cyron, and our departing appointed
> members Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr for the great work and their
> commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland over the past years.
> 
> Sabine Zepp and Lenia Zinßer were elected as auditors. I would like to
> express my gratitude to our departing auditors Daniel Baur, who has been
> serving the association over so many years, and Lena Stammler.
> 
> The general assembly also changed our bylaws to allow for virtual board
> meetings and remote board votes. Additionally, our members added a new rule
> concerning appointed officers to ensure that at least one third of the
> board is of non-male or non-female gender. The general assembly also
> approved changes to our strategy and formally approved of the board’s and
> the executive director’s actions for 2019.
> 
> The new board will reconvene shortly to discuss Movement Strategy matters,
> among others, and I am very much looking forward to working together with
> the new team.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Lukas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Eduardo Testart]

Paul,

From everything I read in discussions and emails, I believe this
distinction between community and movement, makes sense, and... maybe
hasn't been raised before? If it has been, please excuse me, and point me
where :].  I do not know the practical applications that can derive from
it, but I think it adds, at least, a constructive layer for discussion. In
this sense, I consider this observation somewhat refreshing.


Cheers!

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:02 AM Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> [From my comments in the rebranding survey]
>
> "Movement"
>
> Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
> but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
> referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
> consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
> Wikimedia _community_.
>
> Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
> indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
> redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
> the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
> it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
> Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
> a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
> Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.
>
> One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
> WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
> "greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
> not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
> behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
> beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
> the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
> that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
> explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
> is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.
>
> Paul Weiss
> User:Libcub
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Chris Keating]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

>
> I think its fair to call for you to stand aside since taking full
> responsibility for the failing to communicate the Boards actions with the
> community and the communities position with the Board.
>
>
Really, no.

We want Board members who are prepared to take responsibility and prepared
to communicate in a clear and honest way. It would have been easy (but
wrong) to hide behind staff members, or not say anything until there had
been a Board meeting, or to address less of the issues.

Reading the Board's self-assessment that was published on Meta the other
month, there are clearly issues with how well the Board works at the
moment. I do not really understand why or what, but it's clear they're
there.  But getting rid of Board members who take responsibility for things
and engage with the community on difficult issues is not the answer.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Deutschland: general assembly and new Supervisory Board

[Lukas Mezger]

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

On Sunday, Wikimedia Deutschland held its 25th and first-ever virtual
general assembly with over 250 members attending.

Our members elected a new Supervisory Board, which consists of 7 elected
members:

* Lukas Mezger (chair, re-elected)

* Daniel Reisener (treasurer, re-elected)

* Sabria David (re-elected)

* Kilian Kluge (re-elected)

* Christina Dinar

* Valerie Mocker

* Alice Wiegand

Christina Dinar and Valerie Mocker are new to the board, so please join me
in welcoming them as well as in welcoming back Alice Wiegand. We are
particularly pleased that our measures to increase gender diversity have
been successful and that our elected board now consists of four women and
three men.

I would like to wholeheartedly thank our departing elected board members
Harald Krichel, Peter Dewald, and Marcus Cyron, and our departing appointed
members Helene Hahn and Mirjam Stegherr for the great work and their
commitment to Wikimedia Deutschland over the past years.

Sabine Zepp and Lenia Zinßer were elected as auditors. I would like to
express my gratitude to our departing auditors Daniel Baur, who has been
serving the association over so many years, and Lena Stammler.

The general assembly also changed our bylaws to allow for virtual board
meetings and remote board votes. Additionally, our members added a new rule
concerning appointed officers to ensure that at least one third of the
board is of non-male or non-female gender. The general assembly also
approved changes to our strategy and formally approved of the board’s and
the executive director’s actions for 2019.

The new board will reconvene shortly to discuss Movement Strategy matters,
among others, and I am very much looking forward to working together with
the new team.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

 Hi Gnangarra

I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least 
because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of Board 
members of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Quoting from the excellent Wikimedia Board Handbook(1)

"WMF is an entrusted steward within the Wikimedia movement. The Board's role 
(and legal obligation) is to oversee the management of the organization and 
ensure that it fulfills its mission and responsibilities as a steward. To help 
accomplish this, the Board maintains a strong connection to the Wikimedia 
communities. For example, WMF's bylaws require that a majority of Board seats 
(not including the Founder's seat and non-member officer positions) be filled 
by candidates selected by the communities and chapters, and appointed by the 
incumbent Board members - an unusual requirement for a nonprofit board. Board 
members are often active community members as well. That said, Board members 
have a fiduciary duty to represent the overall WMF interests during their 
service on the Board – not just the interests of chapters or certain parts of 
the communities. “

So while the community certainly gets to elect board members, these board 
members have obligations once they are appointed to the board. And yes: that 
also means getting community input, but all board members should be concerned 
with that, not just those elected by the community.

Jan-Bart

> On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:52, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> The choice is yours to resign because the The Board isnt considering the
> community as a key part of what we have created, or because you
> arent representing the community's voice on the Board.


1) 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Fiduciary_duties
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Brad Patrick]

From the beginning, WMF vs. Wikipedia has been the dynamic tension between
structure and the community. I was one of the strongest advocates of
structure. Fundraising and the US-centric approach were the core beliefs
for WMF, as a means of guaranteeing survival when survival was a couple of
hundred servers in one place and a huge bandwidth bill. Today, the
community is everywhere around the globe, and the structural dichotomy
remains the same, but at scale. It is hard to hear the words "several
billions of dollars" and know the Foundation is in real estate in San
Francisco, with staff being paid princely sums, in the rich country where
the streets are paved with gold. It is a world away, and more importantly,
a mental frame away.

Like it or not, commercialism, "branding" and so forth require
significantly more communication than board room conversation and a survey.
I get it. I really do. One of my many mistakes during my tenure with WMF
was authorizing Wikipedia headers during fundraising (the first million
dollar fundraiser). The miscalculation was extraordinary, and opened one of
many such conversations in the ebb and flow of the organization. People of
good faith in the community the world over have diametrically opposed
viewpoints about what should be done when it comes to commercialism.

I'm also an intellectual property lawyer who put his name on the puzzle
logo trademark application. Protection of the "brand" (I hate that - I
prefer marks) is an incredibly important function that cannot be carried
out by the community, legally. The Foundation's job is to hold these marks
and the identity of the community sacred. If I may be direct, that's where
you screwed up. The Board has a lot of work to do now to return to the idea
that you need to be a fiduciary for the community. You need to hold the
community's interest and identity sacred. Now is the time to pause before
even more tremendous damage is done.

If the Foundation is leaving money on the table by not exploiting its
Brand, so be it. "The Foundation" as a commercial organization has utterly
lost sight of who it works for if "the Brand" is the subject of the
conversation. YOU ARE TRUSTEES OF A COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS, AND THAT MEANS
PEOPLE - THE COMMUNITY - FIRST. Stop acting like a hedge fund. Stop
listening to whoever is bringing you statistics like you are any other
commercial organization. Be better. Any other 501(c) organization talks
about how it responds to its "members". Except WMF has the community, not
"members". And it's much more powerful because it is organized in that
fashion.

You have lost your way. Press pause, now. You have no deadline for 2021 -
that's arbitrary. Rethink the sacred obligation you have to the people
around the world who pour their souls and blood into free culture and the
aspiration of free knowledge. That's who you work for. The Foundation
doesn't protect "its" brands. It works for the community, as trustees of
their cultural contributions. Go back to the drawing board and get straight
with that first.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Gnangarra]

This explanation has gone a long way from ensuring this isn't a movement,
it's not considering us as a community either, there's no concept of
collaboration, nor seeking of consensus, and this is tearing down the
Foundation of what made Wikipedia what it is so it's probably not good to
use that either.  It's closer to a revolt, yet I wonder what tense it will
be in.

I think its fair to call for you to stand aside since taking full
responsibility for the failing to communicate the Boards actions with the
community and the communities position with the Board.

You have made it abundantly clear that the Board is not going to engage
meaningfully with the community you represent,  your position is no longer
tenable as a community representative.

The choice is yours to resign because the The Board isnt considering the
community as a key part of what we have created, or because you
arent representing the community's voice on the Board.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:01, Rajeeb Dutta  wrote:

>
> Greetings,
>
> Hope my mail finds you in the best of health and spirit. I like to take
> the opportunity to thank you for a penning a detailed email with
> clarification. Yes, we all looking forward for a better possible outcome.
>
> Stay healthy and be safe.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb.
> (U: Marajozkee)
> (Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity)
>
> > On 22-Jun-2020, at 6:14 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for
> all
> > the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> > engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> > have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> > Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> > our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> > information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> >
> > In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> > recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the
> Wikimedia
> > projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> > global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> > that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> > understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> >
> > In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively
> long
> > term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> > convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> > our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> > the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> > Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from
> the
> > minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> > possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> > considered [3].
> >
> > And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of
> something
> > like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> > sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> > just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> > convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> > initiative.
> >
> > The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the
> way,
> > including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> > However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation
> about
> > what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to
> balance
> > feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> > communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> > exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
> >
> > The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> > process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> > volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> > manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> > people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> > previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community
> or
> > the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand
> project
> > based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or
> removal
> > of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> > mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> > purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> > hurting all of us - 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi Natalii (and everyone)

Thank you for this mail. I know this was hard to write, also knowing that it 
will be dissected by a lot of people who will read it with a perspective all of 
their own. 

Having been on the other side of the fence I know how hard it is to (re)gain 
trust after mistakes have been made (and to be clear, mistakes have and will be 
made by everyone). In my opinion this is caused by an existing tension between 
the volunteer movement and the Foundation which is based mostly on emotions and 
a difference of opinion with regards to the best path forward for a lot of 
issues. Everyone seems to remember the time that the Foundation was tone deaf, 
but no one recalls all the things that are going well. So it is encouraging to 
read that we still have time before the board has to make this decision (and to 
understand that the deciion has not been made)

Honestly: I realise that people find it annoying to be reminded that the board 
has the authority to change the name of the Foundation. But apart from being 
very direct it is not only true, but also your responsibility. As I stated 
elsewhere I look towards the board to make a decision which looks at the 
benefits (which could be financial or otherwise) and the costs (which in this 
case seem to include a lot of resistance from the community). Apparently you 
are not in a position to make that decision at this time, and that is 
understandable. 

However: there is a question if you can accurately measure the outcome of the 
survey as it is formulated now (which should give you a good indication of the 
movements feelings on this topic)… I have heard several people complain that it 
is “not easy” to fill in the survey to indicate that one is against a name 
change altogether. It might be a good idea to make this an easier option or 
gauge feedback in another way. by pausing or restarting the community 
consultation process in a different way.

Thanks again for your efforts. 

Jan-Bart de Vreede

PS: I am thinking of making a standard disclaimer under my emails on topics 
such as these: During my 9 years as a Board member of the Foundation I have 
made mistakes and so have the people I worked with, both volunteers and staff. 
I have however never doubted anyone’s intentions and have always noticed that  
tensions such as these are also fueled  by a passion that can only come from 
caring a lot about the subject matter. It is often easy to forget that. I take 
the blame for the mistakes that were made during my tenure, and I hope that the 
above remarks can be seen as constructive.



> On 22 Jun 2020, at 02:43, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> 
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> 
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
> 
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
> 
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is abundantly clear that some identify only by their community. It is
abundantly clear that people in some communities do not recognise shared
values like "sharing in the sum of all knowledge".

It is also clear that the Wikimedia Foundation is not bound by what some in
a community insist on. It is exactly what was foreseen when the WMF was
incorporated. It is also why the WMF does not need to agree with what some
in a community express.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:02, Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> [From my comments in the rebranding survey]
>
> "Movement"
>
> Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
> but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
> referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
> consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
> Wikimedia _community_.
>
> Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
> indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
> redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
> the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
> it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
> Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
> a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
> Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.
>
> One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
> WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
> "greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
> not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
> behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
> beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
> the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
> that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
> explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
> is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.
>
> Paul Weiss
> User:Libcub
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please take a step back. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in a way
specifically designed to prevent the community from taking over. The
problem with the community is that there is no community as such; there is
a movement that includes different communities with different needs and
with different expectations. The bottom line is what we are there for. For
me it is sharing in the sum of all knowledge. Depending on how you look at
it we do a great job or we have the biggest job in front of us. I think we
have our biggest job in front of us.

The notion of Wikipedia something is from a marketing point of view easy.
It is the best known brand and it has a huge recognition, a huge positive
recognition. However, where we are weakest our brand is weakest and as such
it makes sense to go Wikipedia.  From a community point of view, it is
problematic. For me the most problematic part is that Wikipedia is
primarily associated with English Wikipedia and it prevents modernisation
even when it will improve its quality.

We should not burden our movement by identifying it with this
Anglo/American legacy.

In conclusion, the Wikimedia Foundation is structurally separated from by
those people who address themselves as the community. Like me, they are
not. Unlike me they do not consider why marketing has a place in our
movement and, it is more than just getting attention for the Wikipedia
product.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:01, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
> exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
> the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
> responsibility was taken?
>
> Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
> opinions?
> Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
> Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
> Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
> the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community resigning from the board?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
> matter?
> Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
> board?
>
> As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
> have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
> better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
> can do whatever they want?
>
> "However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
> name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
> decides."?
>
> Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
> to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
> have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."
>
> After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
> that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
> toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
> "half-pepperoni."
>
> Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
> that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
> toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
> or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.
>
> But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
> choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
> extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
> my car and it's too bad.
>
> But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!
>
> One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
> line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
> sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
> this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
> *real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
> with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
> opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
> board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
> turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
> affairs will continue to exist.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for
> all
> > the frustration this whole 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi Nataliia,

Thank you for your statement as the current Chair of WMF Board of Trustees.

If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to change its name and if it has the
right to do whatever it can, then I can just hope that WMF has considered
all the consequences. But I am confused on how affiliates are dragged into
this and how this survey considers affiliates within its scope. Affiliates
are governed by different boards or other governance structures and they
have different Bylaws, which govern them. Many of them are registered and
have to follow their native country's laws. WMF board cannot dictate them
to change as per this survey. Even if some affiliates plan to change their
names, who will take care of all the legal issues which will come to them
while accepting the name Wikipedia? Who will take care of all the
volunteers and affiliate members from the oppressive regimes, when they
will be harassed or arrested for displaying disputed maps on Wikipedia not
compliant with country's laws, or for some information about the country's
dictator or the ruling party etc.?

Many of us find no reason and are still not convinced to fill up this
survey. It is a closed survey and there are only three such options, which
seemed ridiculous to many of us. To me, it looks like that if we are being
given three choices whether to 1) jump from a six-storeyed building and die
2) get hanged and die or 3) take Organophosphate poison and die and rate
among them which one we prefer. I don't know about others, but obviously,
none of these three options are acceptable to me as a good choice of death.
The survey has given us a fourth option where we can give our choice, but
considering the brand team has ignored all the discussions on meta and
other platforms, how will we believe that the fourth option will be duly
taken care of. How will it be ensured that transparency will be there while
dealing with the survey results? Personally, I don't find any reason to
believe after the RfC was totally ignored.

In your statement, you have not said anything about how the WMF will
support the sister projects in the future, after you even plan to change
their movement tag. Do you commit to not ignore the sister projects any
more and invest significantly on them, so that they can flourish with their
true potential? How do you plan to preserve the separate identity and
autonomy of the sister project communities after you tag them as Wikipedia
project?

Regards,
Bodhisattwa


On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 06:14, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
>
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many communities, and the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Thank you Nat. I'm Dutch, and the Dutch are known to be direct, and even I
find your extensive statement direct. That was your intent to do. Thanks, I
welcome that. I know nearly every other culture would prefer less direct
communication.

As an employer you have a duty to protect your employees against
intimidation by volunteers. As a volunteer I also like to be protected
against intimidation.

In this process I have a lonely voice among volunteers, and I do not feel
intimidated. This in contrast to conversations years ago. Maybe I have
developed.

I wish you have adequate procedures to deal with situations in which
employees are intimidated.

The emotions are high among many volunteers, who feel betrayed, not seen
and not heard, and not recognized for their volunteer work.

Volunteers care for the autonomy of the online communities to self govern.
They fear the brand renaming as a power grap by the WMF  to control the
projects, and moreover favor one over all the others.

Commons and Wikidata are big projects now, and volunteers fear that
renaming to Wikipedia will change the status of those projects, and fear
less attention or support for those projects by the Foundation.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to
autonomy and self governance of the online communities, and with respect to
support for Commons, Wikidata and other sister projects?

Another fear by many volunteers is on going centralization, centering more
power and resources in the Foundation, in contrast with affiliates and
communities. One of the central themes of the 2018-2020 Strategy process
was a clear call for decentralization and creation of regional/thematic
hubs.

Could you please indicate the position of the Board with respect to
centralization and decentralization?

My estimate is that the Foundation will raise between 2 and 3 billion
dollars between now and 2030. Mostly from small donor contributions.

Could you indicate the Board estimate for this period, and indicate in
which direction you plan to spend the revenue? What will be the slice of
the cake for the affiliates. It looks like that by 2030 there will be
enough money to fund an affiliate office in every country. How likely is a
move in that direction?

Deadline to respond is 14 calendar days. Please do extend the answering
period of the survey with 14 days as well, so people will be able to digest
answers to the above questions before filling out the survey.

Have a nice day,


Ad Huikeshoven


Op ma 22 jun. 2020 02:44 schreef Nataliia Tymkiv :

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
>
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many 

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative:: Other

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Other

"We network around our best-known brand to connect the movement together".
That feels like marketing-speak. It is unclear what you are trying to
communicate. I do not think that contributors of non-WP projects want to
"network" around Wikipedia.

The lack of hierarchy in names is detrimental to communication and
understanding of our work.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Name of WMF

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Name of WMF

To me a trust implies one party relegating authority over a resource to a
second party, who is expected to manage it well, and return it at some
point to the first party or a third party. I do not see the WMF's role as
including such as a notion. I also do not think that including "Trust"
makes it any clearer that the WMF is where to go for legal issues. (Also, I
do find it ironic that the proposal suggests incorporating the word "Trust"
in the name of WMF, given how low the community trust in WMF is.)

"Wikimedia Organization" does not sound like the name of something, but
rather a general description of it.

"Wiki" is too generic to refer to WMF projects--there are far too many
other wikis in the world. I have to say I am truly astonished to see this
presented as a legitmate option. Various other wiki communities (such as
those at fandom.com) would be understandably furious with WMF for trying to
co-opt "Wiki" for themselves. How could that possibly not be damaging to
our reputation?

I think "Foundation" is a good word to describe what WMF does.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

Our overall community centers around the current Wikimedia concept, not
Wikipedia. Naming the whole from one its parts is ambiguous, confusing, and
disrespectful to non-Wikipedia projects. The majority of the population of
the United States is white, but it would be absolutely preposterous to
rename the country to the White United States of America, even if that is
how people in other countries (and Americans) think of it.

We are not selling a product or service. I think it is _good_ that some
organizations and people do not know about our plethora of projects, as
that gives us an opportunity to talk with them about the other projects. I
believe that changing the name to "Wikipedia" will make it more difficult
to get outsiders to pay attention to non-Wikipedia projects.

I believe that moving to "Wikipedia" will damage our reputation. In
addition to the reasons above, it will likely alienate at least some of
those involved in non-Wikipedia projects. It could turn the community into
the Wikipedia community, as our other projects fade away.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

"Movement"

Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
Wikimedia _community_.

Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.

One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
"greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Greetings,

Hope my mail finds you in the best of health and spirit. I like to take the 
opportunity to thank you for a penning a detailed email with clarification. 
Yes, we all looking forward for a better possible outcome.

Stay healthy and be safe.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb.
(U: Marajozkee)
(Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity) 

> On 22-Jun-2020, at 6:14 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
> 
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
> 
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
> 
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes
> sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
> just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
> convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
> initiative.
> 
> The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way,
> including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans.
> However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about
> what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance
> feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new
> communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
> exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
> 
> The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
> process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
> volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
> manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
> people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
> previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or
> the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project
> based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal
> of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith
> mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
> purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
> hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
> created a lot of bitterness.
> 
> I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
> conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
> mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know
> the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it
> is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious
> circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not
> talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change.
> So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.
> 
> The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been
> decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was
> approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
> “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
> outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
> practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
> However, it is important to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Dan Szymborski]

OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
responsibility was taken?

Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
opinions?
Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community resigning from the board?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
matter?
Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
board?

As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
can do whatever they want?

"However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides."?

Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."

After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
"half-pepperoni."

Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.

But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
my car and it's too bad.

But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!

One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
*real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
affairs will continue to exist.

Best,

Dan





On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia