[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[nosebagbear]

Gabriele, indicated we shouldn't use the current methodology unless they have 
very good alternatives - but the same applies to stopping it. 

We don't have the capacity to handle a big bulk increase in pending changes as 
proposed by gbfv  on en-wiki and presumably others as well - and making very 
short-length blocks on proxies would require a major increase in Steward time, 
which a quick review of the average  myriad steward backlogs indicates is not 
really a resource in sufficient supply to be profligate with. 

Others have proposed using a professional group of employees to either replace 
or outweigh the CU corps. I seriously doubt many projects are going to be happy 
with vastly increasing the amount of blocks implemented by the foundation on 
the basis of evidence that very few can see. 

Vermont has correctly summarised the issues that come with any 
auto-implementation of IPBE. 

But there clearly is a need to act on the growing set of problems, and DannyH's 
list has many good options (and even the not so good options are the ones that 
obviously should be considered to judge the tradeoff threshold). 

If we can smooth the process for Stewards (on their side) to shrink the time 
needed for each action, that's the same effect as having more active stewards. 
That let's us consider options that currently may be a non-starter. We also 
need to smooth the process for requesting unblocks (or even understanding the 
problem). No doubt this is excabated by the "they can't hear you" 
 problems.  

We absolutely need a process for simplifying and clarifying both understanding 
IPBE (global/local) and then requesting it. 

Now, I suspect most "innocent" proxies being added/blocked would probably 
become "harmful" if unblocked (that is, sooner or later they'd be used 
problematically), but that's definitely something that should be tested as we 
expand on blocking proxies just because we know they're proxies.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RAUHUNPTGWGOAJTHKXC4QGW5ODJCNCMF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is coming. Help us and prepare

[nosebagbear]

This is a proposal that would need to be included in next year's funding plan. 
It also would involve an obligation for the other teams within the Foundation.

**Part 1: Funding redistribution and Big Ticket team**
This year, we (that is, the WMF using movement funds) spent a huge amount of 
money ($4.5 million) just directly donating to external knowledge equity funds. 

This was done without Community review, or indeed, approval of the concept. A 
look through our email archives will show it was hardly a popular use of our 
money. 

I propose that we stand-up a 2nd community wishlist team. Going off the average 
salaries, and the standard non-salary overhead for equivalent organisations, it 
should support a 16-18 person team.

This team's purpose is to handle the "Big Ticket" items, beyond the capacities 
of the current team. It will probably be 1-2 main items a year, with the 
ability to handle small(er) items from the main wishlist if they finish 
slightly early. 

The current team could then alternate annually between 
Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons items and small-project items. 

**Part 2: blocked item obligations**

By far and away the two most common reasons for wishlist items being declined 
are "too large a project" (hopefully handled by part 1) and "in another team's 
scope". This aims to handle the 2nd issue with a "co-operate or takeup" mandate.

Where another team is "in the way" of a wishlist item, it should be obligated 
to fulfill that item itself within 24 months, or co-operate and utilise the 
Wishlist team's resources to fulfill it while avoiding disruption from separate 
workflows.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QCZC5X4V5DVQHO2WDOO7HUBEN6KIK2VZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[nosebagbear]

Hi Maggie,

Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's) 
reasoning:

1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy like 
this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I can't 
imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a visible policy, 
and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams can't really decide 
major things with it in mind either. And it also took some time to (seemingly 
purely internally) write. So why is it taking so long to explain why we're 
having to wait until after Christmas break to discuss it? *Why is it 
retroactive discussion at all?*

2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the private 
sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human rights." - you 
say you note the tension from needing to have such a playbook be hidden to 
remain functional and be a collaborative community. 

I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect "the 
policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us knowing the 
actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a complete listing of 
ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a concern that the WMF 
spends too much time trying to speak for the movement without actually knowing 
that their specific positions are backed by the movement as a whole. Doing it 
with this dichotomy in place surely seems even less wise. 

3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after this 
went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas break. I 
just got a message saying they were collating questions and would answer in the 
new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was this procedure used" 
or "why was this paragraph included", rather than substantive content change 
proposals.

If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy that I 
help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not the case 
here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to publicly 
consult are already known? So why the lag time?

Yours,

Richard (Nosebagbear)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 3

[Nosebagbear]

Quoth its own page, the BOT's remit is " The Wikimedia Foundation *Board of
Trustees* oversees the Wikimedia Foundation and its work", not the
Movement.

If the BOT wants to act as an actual representative body (which it doesn't
claim to be) then it would need significant rework and a clear statement
that that's what voters were voting for.

As to the issue raised by another on meta-rfcs being dominated by en-wiki
(although the stats I've seen on recent ones don't show a wild disparity
compared to the large plurality of all editors), I actually raised a
proposal specifically to factor that in for the actual UCOC ratification,
but the selection of that method (to avoid a "turtles all the way down"
issue) would inherently need to be something pre-standing - UCOC drafting
committee would certainly be fine there.

The WMF was heavily opposed to proposals to do a much more distributed
approach to avoid that specific issue, in the last ratification meeting
hosted.
That meeting in general, unlike its predecessor, was significantly more
fractious.

In general, a good demonstration on why ratification methodologies are a
good thing to specify before every side has had a chance to become highly
invested in an actual draft language.


*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:09, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1 (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:08:26 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
> <
> cao53wxumgy3do3aqej4fdakv6ho6oezaa7pxbprjygdgcbj...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="58672505d306c5f4"
>
> Hoi,
> The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by
> some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of
> committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The
> committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm
> pretty
> > confident I did not.
> >
> > Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
> > odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
> > did.
> >
> > But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
> > responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to
> the
> > degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
> > the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
> > enshrined in law.
> >
> > p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
> > this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
> > someone to change to an appropriate title.
> >
> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
> >
> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
> viewpoints
> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> > of the MCDC.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> &g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1

[Nosebagbear]

Hello,

I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm pretty
confident I did not.

Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
did.

But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to the
degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
enshrined in law.

p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
someone to change to an appropriate title.

*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
>  aa-27gauajxy3yrj25ajbkpkrytk2-jjtsv...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="56b3ac05d305c5c3"
>
> Hoi,
> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
> > Dear Patrick,
> >
> > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S
> policy,
> > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
> > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
> ratification
> > far before the ArbCom letter.
> >
> > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
> need
> > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made,
> or
> > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
> >
> > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
> > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
> > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
> > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
> > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
> > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
> >
> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
> >
> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
> viewpoints
> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> > of the MCDC.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
> >> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
> >>   (Andreas Kolbe)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
> >> From: Andreas Kolbe 
> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
> >> period

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3

[Nosebagbear]

Dear Patrick,

Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy,
directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification
far before the ArbCom letter.

Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need
for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or
that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?

Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.

*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
> From: Andreas Kolbe 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
> Guidelines
> and next step
> To: Patrick Earley 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
> <
> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will
> be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
>
> As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some
> answers to the questions I asked earlier?
>
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H4FGTRCTKKCLJXFQVWFOCHMZCOFE2KBM/
>
> For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are
> Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
>
> – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
>
> – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and
> off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
>
> – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting
> Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa
> case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
>
> https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
> and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)?
>
> – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or
> is about to be committed?
>
> Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of
> fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be
> subject to blocks and bans?
>
> I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent
> correctly.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the
> > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised
> by
> > the Drafting Committee.  Detailed information of the policy text review
> > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for
> > comment and ratification.  The review will likely follow established
> policy
> > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1]
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Patrick,
> >>
> >> Thanks. You say,
> >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step

[nosebagbear]

Hello,

I would make a couple of notes here:

One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of the 
process. 

There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft policy text 
on - they can't go into the final document without chance for open review and 
further revision. 

While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen nothing 
formal and nothing in writing. 

Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the community's 
expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits (that's why they were 
open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to review than the aspects 
already there, not less. 

Yours,

Nosebagbear
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[nosebagbear]

Dear Guillame, as well as others who may share his position:

I write as a partial rebuttal to a number of points within your response.

"In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably
require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion
dollar"

Much of this is premised not on direct spending for our projects, our editors, 
or even a reasonable growth rate for the endowment. Instead it is an attempt to 
resolve knowledge equity on a global scale by transferring huge sums of money 
outside Wikimedia.

This despite the fact that the strategy recommendations have dubious binding 
power in general, having never undergone a consensus method. But in the case of 
knowledge equity it's even more dubious, as it's a recommendation that had 
unanimous stated disagreement on the actual recommendation. The WMF seems to 
take them as a given, which since they were responsible for the close, would 
inherently make them INVOLVED. 

Beyond that, the first tranche of donations, huge donations, to external 
projects this year did not notify the broad community of this, did not take on 
full community feedback as to a) whether we should do this at all, or b) 
whether these particular efforts were wise/cost-efficient etc. 

You say that the fundraising team has done years of A/B testing, but while they 
do a fantastic job at raising money, it clearly *isn't* set for the lowest 
level of alarmist needed to raise the necessary sum of money. The necessary sum 
of money is what's been set as the budget for the year. If you want that budget 
to be forward-facing, increase the target budget. 

Instead we smash past it, which demonstrates highly effective fundraising 
abilities, but that the dial for acceptable alarmism is way too high.

I am an OTRS/VRT agent, and some of the tidal wave of tickets we get as a 
result of this phrasing make me consider resigning the position every 
Nov-December, when the bulk come in. 

"denying ourselves the resources we need is harmful"

Not doubt, but you're defining "need" (not, would find beneficial [if you can 
prove that]) and "we" (not somewhat aligned organisations) without having got 
Community agreement for a mass expansion of these definitions. 

If you genuinely believe that these are needed, then the banners should be 
reading "we need to get up to $1 billion/year fundraising, with roughly 1/8th 
to actually maintain our projects, and 7/8 to support a variety of external 
projects in different countries to encourage knowledge acquisition". 

Just because it's effective doesn't mean you're allowed to use alarmist 
language unless it is 100% accurate in every facet. I have told the state of 
our finances and the use of money to a number of non-wikipedians, and about 75% 
cease donating, at least for that fundraising wave. If the language were 
correct, then I shouldn't be able to convince *anyone*.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DX2H6PEHENLQ4MPQKYDH2VNJJOKNBNGP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

[Nosebagbear]

Hello,

I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the
questions selected by the Elections Committee <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A>
from the broader Community-created list <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates>
has not been well-chosen, on several grounds.

First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant
Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so
strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be
grounds for presumptive inclusion.

The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As a
role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it
seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be
answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions
in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA
candidates who answer well over 20, on average.

A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions on
the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones left
off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it is
also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from
individually seeking answers from candidates.

Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am
unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the
original Q&A talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given
for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list.

There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I
look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a
section.

Cheers,

Nosebagbear
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[nosebagbear]

Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post]

"Moving forward, we will
articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important 
discussions and
our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices."

That would be a reasonable statement if this were a more marginally concerning 
action - something that promoted some concerns, and pointed to potential 
greater future issues if not resolved.

However this indicates the WMF is willing to accept that an error was made, but 
not actually vitiate that error. It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* 
aware of Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level of oversight of 
affiliate governance is occurring that there being significant affiliates with 
provisions like this not be known? 

Like functionally the entire participant list of the email thread to date, I 
don't think there was any absence of good faith from key actors. But nor do I 
think it's "merely" (and it's a very big "merely" indeed) an optics complaint. 
There are genuine accidental COI issues that arise, as well as the instance 
raising genuine concerns at the decision-making and awareness of community 
values that anyone operating in such a significant consulting role in the most 
critical field of discussions the movement has had in a decade. 

Yours,

Nosebagbear
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YZ6SE42G5U7CTBJQY3CQWNTATCU47G3F/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org