Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

[Zack McCune]

Cheers Bachounda & Yaroslav!

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:47 PM Mohammed Bachounda 
wrote:

> Thanks Zack,
>
> Hoping that it will boost the project.
>
> Best
>
> Le mer. 5 août 2020 à 20:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :
>
> > Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28
> to
> > > provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process
> > of
> > > the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events
> including
> > > the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey results). We
> > also
> > > answered preliminary questions and committed to resolving other
> questions
> > > that come up.
> > >
> > > The brand project team is preparing for our upcoming Board meeting
> where
> > we
> > > will decide next steps. The 2-day in-person Board of Trustees meeting
> > > originally scheduled to coincide with Wikimania in early August, has
> now
> > > been moved to a series of virtual meetings over the last two weeks of
> > > September.
> > >
> > > For reference, the Brand Project team has added the materials that were
> > > shared with the Board of Trustees to our project page. [1]
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > - Zack
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#See_also
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And, how might one view it?
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello all -
> > > > >
> > > > > A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled
> > for
> > > > July
> > > > > 28th.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Zack
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > > > > joa...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling
> better.
> > > > Best,
> > > > > > João
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > > > > > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > escreveu:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > > > Trustees
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of
> > > July
> > > > > 8th
> > > > > > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the
> key
> > > > staff
> > > > > > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board
> > > > meeting,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > > > > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your
> > normal
> > > > > > working
> > > > > > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during
> > > weekend.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off.
> > Thank
> > > > you
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > advance!*
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > >  > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Zack McCune (he/him)
> > > > >
> > > > > Director of Brand
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

[Mohammed Bachounda]

Thanks Zack,

Hoping that it will boost the project.

Best

Le mer. 5 août 2020 à 20:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :

> Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated.
>
> Best regards
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to
> > provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process
> of
> > the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events including
> > the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey results). We
> also
> > answered preliminary questions and committed to resolving other questions
> > that come up.
> >
> > The brand project team is preparing for our upcoming Board meeting where
> we
> > will decide next steps. The 2-day in-person Board of Trustees meeting
> > originally scheduled to coincide with Wikimania in early August, has now
> > been moved to a series of virtual meetings over the last two weeks of
> > September.
> >
> > For reference, the Brand Project team has added the materials that were
> > shared with the Board of Trustees to our project page. [1]
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - Zack
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#See_also
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > And, how might one view it?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello all -
> > > >
> > > > A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled
> for
> > > July
> > > > 28th.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > - Zack
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > > > joa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better.
> > > Best,
> > > > > João
> > > > >
> > > > > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > > > > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > escreveu:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > > Trustees
> > > > > was
> > > > > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of
> > July
> > > > 8th
> > > > > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key
> > > staff
> > > > > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board
> > > meeting,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > > > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your
> normal
> > > > > working
> > > > > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during
> > weekend.
> > > > You
> > > > > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off.
> Thank
> > > you
> > > > in
> > > > > > advance!*
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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,
> > > > > >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Zack McCune (he/him)
> > > >
> > > > Director of Brand
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Zack 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated.

Best regards
Yaroslav

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to
> provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process of
> the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events including
> the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey results). We also
> answered preliminary questions and committed to resolving other questions
> that come up.
>
> The brand project team is preparing for our upcoming Board meeting where we
> will decide next steps. The 2-day in-person Board of Trustees meeting
> originally scheduled to coincide with Wikimania in early August, has now
> been moved to a series of virtual meetings over the last two weeks of
> September.
>
> For reference, the Brand Project team has added the materials that were
> shared with the Board of Trustees to our project page. [1]
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Zack
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#See_also
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > And, how might one view it?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all -
> > >
> > > A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for
> > July
> > > 28th.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > - Zack
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > > joa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better.
> > Best,
> > > > João
> > > >
> > > > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > > > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > escreveu:
> > > >
> > > > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees
> > > > was
> > > > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of
> July
> > > 8th
> > > > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key
> > staff
> > > > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board
> > meeting,
> > > > and
> > > > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > > > >
> > > > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> > > > working
> > > > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during
> weekend.
> > > You
> > > > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank
> > you
> > > in
> > > > > advance!*
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Zack McCune (he/him)
> > >
> > > Director of Brand
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zack McCune (he/him)
>
> Director of Brand
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

[Zack McCune]

Hello everyone,

Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to
provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process of
the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events including
the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey results). We also
answered preliminary questions and committed to resolving other questions
that come up.

The brand project team is preparing for our upcoming Board meeting where we
will decide next steps. The 2-day in-person Board of Trustees meeting
originally scheduled to coincide with Wikimania in early August, has now
been moved to a series of virtual meetings over the last two weeks of
September.

For reference, the Brand Project team has added the materials that were
shared with the Board of Trustees to our project page. [1]

Cheers,

- Zack

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#See_also

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> And, how might one view it?
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all -
> >
> > A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for
> July
> > 28th.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > - Zack
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > joa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better.
> Best,
> > > João
> > >
> > > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees
> > > was
> > > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July
> > 8th
> > > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key
> staff
> > > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board
> meeting,
> > > and
> > > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > > >
> > > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> > > working
> > > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend.
> > You
> > > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank
> you
> > in
> > > > advance!*
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Zack McCune (he/him)
> >
> > Director of Brand
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 

Zack McCune (he/him)

Director of Brand

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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: Briefing postponement

[Todd Allen]

And, how might one view it?

Todd

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hello all -
>
> A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July
> 28th.
>
> thanks,
>
> - Zack
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> joa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best,
> > João
> >
> > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > was
> > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July
> 8th
> > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff
> > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting,
> > and
> > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > >
> > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> > working
> > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend.
> You
> > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you
> in
> > > advance!*
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zack McCune (he/him)
>
> Director of Brand
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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: Briefing postponement

[Zack McCune]

Hello all -

A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July
28th.

thanks,

- Zack

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski 
wrote:

> Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best,
> João
>
> Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> escreveu:
>
> >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> was
> > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July 8th
> > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff
> > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting,
> and
> > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> > advance!*
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 

Zack McCune (he/him)

Director of Brand

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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: Briefing postponement

[João Alexandre Peschanski]

Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best,
João

Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv 
escreveu:

>  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was
> notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July 8th
> needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff
> members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting, and
> we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

 Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was
notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July 8th
needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff
members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting, and
we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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: next steps

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Nat,

Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.

Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think we all would like the board to be as fully informed as
possible about this topic, and I couldn't reasonably expect all board
members to read all discussions about this topic. I could for example
imagine that you invite the framers of the open letter to provide a short
presentation as well. This would be in acknowledgement that it's a very
complex task for any team to collect data and insights that are contrary to
what they saw as their instructions for several years.

As I also referred to in my 'asymmetry of power' comment in response to the
executive statement on meta earlier, I believe this is core to many
objections when highly disputed decisions are being made by the board: the
voice of the part of the community that strongly feels about and disagrees
with the proposal, is not in the room to make their case. I know there are
some attempts being made in the strategy process to address this, but
perhaps in the same spirit, the board could experiment a little with being
more inclusive of such voices - especially now that is technically trivial
as the meetings are all online anyway.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:27 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[James Salsman]

Hi Zack,

I filled out a survey request for "The Wiki Foundation".

Some of the text of the survey indicated that the legal department thought
that there could be a problem with that possibility, but didn't say why, so
I asked for the source for the claim I quoted in the survey.

How many questions (or, if it's easier '?' question marks) are currently in
the responses to your survey questions? Would you please publish them along
with your answers?

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> > renaming
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
I think the problem is that you appear to have misread what he wrote, or
maybe confused him with someone else entirely. Or are you replying, in this
thread, to something he wrote in another? As it stands, his comment
suggests that the WMF can and perhaps should change its name to something
"suitable for the parent of all projects, not just Wikipedia. " The point
being, as I read it, that other solutions to that problem may be available
and the survey neglects to touch on them at all.

Nothing in that sounds like an en.wp-centric view that one project should
be the flagship for all projects and that should be reflected in the brand.
Exactly the opposite.

This is the issue with imputing motives to individuals who haven't stated
them; you may be wrong, and if you are wrong, you may offend your target or
others.
___
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: next steps

[Fæ]

Agreed.

Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us
working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago,
it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate
for public education and open knowledge.

These personal comments are misleading and hostile.

Fae

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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: next steps

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks WSC; elegantly put.

On survey process: seconding what others have said,
if you have gotten ~1000 of a desired 4000 responses, and haven't asked two
questions that you realize are essential, yes it is absolutely worth
running a new survey w the new options.

You can even identify cross-survey-iteration correlation : after drafting
an updated survey (and a banner for it) you could randomly offer 20% of
participants the _old_ survey and use correlation there to infer a way to
jointly interpret both versions.

S.

On Mon., Jun. 29, 2020, 4:35 a.m. Ariel Glenn WMF, 
wrote:

>
> I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability
> of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the
> table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey
> purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name
> community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and
> "change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".
>
> It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what
> percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on
> rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be
> made public.
>
> If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to
> the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no
> change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing
> the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline
> to slip a little, it would be worth it.
>
> Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated
> ?
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Natalia,
> >
> > I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> > survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> > problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to
> be
> > designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> > find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
> >
> > "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I
> am
> > not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> > sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> > people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of
> the
> > WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> > Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a
> relatively
> > harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> > projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have
> been
> > my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> > differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> > sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured
> child,
> > does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name,
> don't
> > change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is
> also a
> > position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > WereSpielChequers
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 1
> > > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <
> > > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dunning and Kruger have nothing to do with it; I am perfectly able to get
it wrong. What you do is dismissive and you do not make a point. That makes
it a fail by default.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 13:58, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not
> identify a cure.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Peter Southwood]

Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not identify a 
cure.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Peter Southwood]

So far it has been an ongoing process. No obvious reason to expect a change.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dan Szymborski
Sent: 28 June 2020 18:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > br

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Gnangarra]

It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they
think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's
the best known identity.   It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and
run.

There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name, to get to
those aspects and come up with something new is an exercise that no
PR/advertising company wants to take on without substantial outlay and
healthy profit because failure will be remembered long after the last
cheque is cashed.  You only need to look at how the outcome of
Alphabet/Google naming to realise that deeper meanings exist.  Wikipedia is
more than just a brand outside the movement, it's synonymous with it being
a community, with trusted knowledge, and significantly something that
somehow worked when everything the experts assumed about collaboration said
it shouldn't.

Yes we know the board can do whatever they want, call themselves whatever
they want,  the question has always been should they?, even then they
should have known not to.

The Wikimedia Foundation will always be a distant second to Wikipedia even
if they try to take on the name Wikipedia, which is as it should be as
Wikipedia is not about the Board or Foundation both of whom are there to
only support the projects.  It's beholden upon us as community members to
grow the community, to grow the content , and ensure its quality the
Foundation is there to provide the support/foundations we need to do our
part. While the Board is there to ensure that the WMF acts within the
bounds of its scope and complies with its legal requirements as a charity.

WMF and the Board are just the pilot and tug boat whos knowledge is meant
to keep us off the rocks, tug boats dont take on the name of the ship they
have their own identity.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 18:36, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > ___
> > 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: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
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: next steps

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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: next steps

[Benjamin Lees]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> you make that plain in what you say.
>

This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.

[1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
___
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: next steps

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has
consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus" has it
that we do not collaborate with Wikidata, it follows that you will not
consider linking blue and red wiki links to Wikidata items and not to
Wikipedia titles. From a Wikipedia point of view it is perfectly acceptable
but no longer a great choice. From a Wikimedia point of view,
not considering options shows that there is no consideration for our
overall goal; sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

Wikimedia has multiple projects and we will have more impact when we
collaborate. Commons is searchable in any and all languages thanks to
Special:MediaSearch [1], when we expose it on every Wikipedia, it will be
easier to illustrate Wikipedias. Wikidata can rid Wikipedia of much of its
false friends problem and it can ensure that lists are better maintained.
Magnus has shown that this is true even for English Wikipedia and as always
English Wikipedia is only one of the Wikipedias.

When Wikipedia is mentioned, English Wikipedia is implied. It has something
like 50% of our traffic and it does represent less than 50% or our target
audience. I am all for improving the marketing of our projects but the bias
for and the toxicity of English Wikipedia makes me oppose it. In essence,
it is English Wikipedia that has to polish up its act, accept
opposing points of view from others before it becomes reasonable to accept
it as a flagship.
Thanks,
  GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=boomkikker

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 23:06, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Dear Natalia,
>
> I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
> designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a whil

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Thank you WereSpielChequers for writing so clearly and concisely what I
have been struggling to put into words for some days.

I understand that good faith efforts were made to investigate the usability
of the terms "W" and "Wiki". [1] Once these wiki-related terms were off the
table, the options were narrowed to "Wikipedia plus some term" for survey
purposes. While the survey is thus useful to see which Wikipedia-based name
community members prefer most, it excludes the options "no change" and
"change but not to a Wikipedia-based term".

It is possible that people crunching the numbers already know what
percentages of the community(ies) support the other two options based on
rfcs and so on. If this is so, it would be great for that information to be
made public.

If however those numbers are not known, I would urge that an addendum to
the survey be run that asks people to select one of the following; "no
change", "new name containing the term Wikipedia", "new name not containing
the term Wikipedia". I believe that even if this would cause the timeline
to slip a little, it would be worth it.

Ariel "Wearing sporadic-volunteer hat" Glenn

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Naming_FAQ#Were_there_other_naming_convention_proposals_that_did_not_end_up_in_the_survey?_Why_were_they_eliminated
?

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:06 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Natalia,
>
> I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
> designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Dan Szymborski]

Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> > renaming
> > > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> > position
> > > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and
> that
> > > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are
> also
> > > some who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Dan Szymborski]

A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds
like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit
> for purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically
> questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the
> possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been
> brought up so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Nataliia Tymkiv
> Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[WereSpielChequers]

Dear Natalia,

I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.

"No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".


Regards

WereSpielChequers



Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> Message-ID:
> <
> cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who woul

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Peter Southwood]

It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit for 
purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically 
questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the 
possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been brought up 
so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nataliia Tymkiv
Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Dear all,

I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.

Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting.

Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.

We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
whether to adopt them.

Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:

* Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
briefing on discussions happening;

* July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;

* August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.

* August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
the Brand project.

I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.

Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Zack McCune]

Dear all,

We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.

We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a change.

We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
that information into the process.

The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.

   -

   Zack & the Brand Project team

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals


On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
> in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
> opinions.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> >
> > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> more
> > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> survey
> > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> to
> > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> on
> > whether to adopt them.
> >
> > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> >
> > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> review
> > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> > briefing on discussions happening;
> >
> > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > posted publicly after the meeting;
> >
> > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> stop,
> > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> >
> > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> about
> > the Brand project.
> >
> > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> renaming
> > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> position
> > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> > some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> > communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
> >
> > Stay safe,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
> >
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Paul J. Weiss]

"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to
change the survey now"

This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is
not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and
WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they would immediately stop
the current one, and rewrite a new one, designed with minimal bias. If some
survey asked about ethnicity, and left off "Black/Afican American" as an
option, would you still continue the poorly written survey? As I have said
before, you have staff with survey expertise--use them!

This is yet another sign that those in charge do not truly want to know how
the community feels about the rebranding initiative. Y'all say "Branding
should protect and improve the reputation of the movement". That is
becoming harder and harder to believe. Not stopping a biased survey clearly
damages the reputation of our brand. I wonder if it is time to fork
Wikipedia.

Paul
User:Libcub

At 2020-06-26  04:27 p, you wrote:

Dear all, I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees about the Brand Project. Originally the Board
meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to happen no earlier
than October. The expected outcome from the project were the
recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting. Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a
briefing about the project and talk about the process between June 2018 -
June 2020. The consolidated materials on what the brand project team has
been working on for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these
materials are also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic
conversation is planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the
materials is needed, and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised,
so the Board can have an in-depth discussion about this, before making any
kind of decision. We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have
discussed the possibility of technical changes to the survey with an
additional option like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind
you), but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound
to change the survey now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses
to the survey will not be calculated as support for a change. The survey
was only designed to collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not
as a yes/no vote on whether to adopt them. Thus the timeline on rebranding
for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows: * Early July - special Board meeting
with the Brand project team to review and discuss the process so far, and
for the Board members to receive the briefing on discussions happening; *
July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be posted
publicly after the meeting; * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming
part of the rebranding, not about the process. The Board will make the
decision about whether to stop, pause, or continue the work on this, within
the framework of a discussion on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs,
and potential next steps. * August (after the meeting) - the Board
statement on the next steps about the Brand project. I also want to
acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming [2] that was
posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position of those of
you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that some would
agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also some who
would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and communication after
them will address the concerns raised in the letter. Stay safe, antanana /
Nataliia Tymkiv Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [1]
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming *NOTICE:
You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!* ___ 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, <
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
opinions.

Thanks
User:Titodutta


On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Dear all,

I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.

Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting.

Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.

We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
whether to adopt them.

Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:

* Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
briefing on discussions happening;

* July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;

* August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.

* August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
the Brand project.

I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.

Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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

[Pete Forsyth]

I tend to agree with Nathan here. I don't know the history of the event
described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even
if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect
person in an accusation is no small thing.

Gnangarra, you have given yourself an opportunity to show the rest of us
what it looks like to take responsibility for doing something wrong. I
think we are all interested to see what path you take.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:08 PM Nathan  wrote:

> Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little more
> substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you
> yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board
> miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board
> directives that she did not write, you slandered her with an accusation
> that is both incorrectly applied to her and false in any case.
>
> As you said, "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 await your demonstration of this principle
> which is clearly so critically important to you. Nataliia is a human being
> and a volunteer, as are we all, and we should all be better than to toss
> off gross insults against colleagues on no basis whatsoever.
>
> On the topic, I think others have said it very well - the core problem is
> that this rebranding approach is backward. It should have begun with
> community conversations, with a "grass roots" effort to develop a common
> understanding of the problem. Instead the Board decided, paid some people a
> lot of money to present a narrow range of options, and planned the
> community consultation as a last and limited step. These are serious errors
> with significant consequences, as we see.
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > My apologies for that error
> >
> >
> ___
> 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

[Nathan]

Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little more
substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you
yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board
miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board
directives that she did not write, you slandered her with an accusation
that is both incorrectly applied to her and false in any case.

As you said, "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 await your demonstration of this principle
which is clearly so critically important to you. Nataliia is a human being
and a volunteer, as are we all, and we should all be better than to toss
off gross insults against colleagues on no basis whatsoever.

On the topic, I think others have said it very well - the core problem is
that this rebranding approach is backward. It should have begun with
community conversations, with a "grass roots" effort to develop a common
understanding of the problem. Instead the Board decided, paid some people a
lot of money to present a narrow range of options, and planned the
community consultation as a last and limited step. These are serious errors
with significant consequences, as we see.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> My apologies for that error
>
>
___
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

[phoebe ayers]

I second Jan-Bart; thanks to Nat for this letter. As someone who asked for
a board statement, I appreciate this very much. And as someone who has also
been on the other side, like Jan-Bart I am aware of how much work a
statement like this likely took (and how difficult it is to balance many
perspectives, and address many audiences, knowing many will be irritated or
angry in any controversial debate).

I also take heart -- honestly and genuinely -- that we are debating this
issue. I am glad that enough people care about Wikimedia, and what it
means, that they are willing to argue the point -- it would be a sad day
indeed if that wasn't true. I take heart that we do want more people to
join our projects and movement, and are exploring ways to do that --
including how people know of us, our names and brands. I also, lastly, want
to acknowledge Brad's post, with which I agree. It is a fundamental role of
the Foundation to hold our marks in trust on behalf of the community. This
(like hosting the servers themselves, or other essential infrastructure
work) is part of what we need a corporate entity for. And our legal team,
over many years and many GCs and leaders, has done an admirable job of
defending those marks and keeping them for all of us. I appreciate that
very much. Keeping the marks is a social trust as well as a legal one, and
that social aspect is what we find ourselves discussing now.

For the staff involved, I want to acknowledge that many of you have been
working on this for years, and it must feel like you cannot win, or that
there is not enough consultation in the world. Is there enough consultation
in the world to get hundreds of thousands of Wikimedians to all agree?
Probably not, no. But is there enough consultation to, as the Quakers would
say, discern the sense of the meeting? I think that there is, and I think
with every consultation exercise we get closer to finding that consensus. I
wrote elsewhere on Meta that I was profoundly disappointed in this process.
That is true, and yet: I am also profoundly glad that I, and so many of us,
have such high standards for our movement -- our absolutely unique,
sometimes infuriating, and profoundly essential movement, that values
debate and dissent, collaboration and consensus. That is a brand we all
keep in trust.

-- Phoebe


On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:25 AM Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Samuel Klein]

Brad: this was brilliant, thank you.

I have been thinking about how to phrase this all week, and you touched it
with a needle.

The Foundation's one undelegable role is to protect the community identity
through its marks.
That is a foundation upon which all else rests.

There are many ways we can improve our visibility and use of marks in
different regions.
This is a task facing all of us in our own communities. (And in this,
passion and persistence can be as important as a great concept.)

But it is self-destructive for our mark-protector to repurpose a project
name against the wishes of its community.  It is no better to circle the
question, saying "we are only considering it. of course we have the
unilateral right to do this, the project name is *our* mark and not *yours*".
That cuts deep — like carving out one's own heart to realize one of its
passing desires.

Brad wrote:
> Protection of the [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.

Our ethos includes self-governance, collaboration, and public iteration.
Let us embody that in this discussion. We should also be always prepared
 to rebuild the encyclopedia (or
any aspect of free knowledge) from scratch.  Let us not rest on our
laurels, and continue building anew.

Sam.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:25 PM Brad Patrick  wrote:

> Today, the community is everywhere around the globe, and the structural
> dichotomy
> remains the same, but at scale.
>


> 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.



> 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.
>
___
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

[Shabab Mustafa]

Thank you, Nataliia, for stepping forward and clearing out some of the
confusion. That helps.

But not all the confusion gets cleared for me regarding the survey process.
For example, X marks Option 1 as 'Disagree' and Option 2 as 'Strongly
Disagree'. The score points for 'Disagree' is -1 and 'Strongly Disagree' is
-2. Will the report say, 'X prefers Option 1 over Option 2', just because
mathematically -1 is greater than -2?

Please pardon my lack of understanding of reporting formats, as I could not
find the information on how the result of this survey will be interpreted
and presented to the board.

BR,
Shabab


On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 22:55, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> And there never was any insult or anything close to that, just a
> misunderstanding, which I believe was clarified.
>
> A terça, 23 de jun de 2020, 08:56, revi  escreveu:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> > >
> > > Nat insulted an ESEAP
> > > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> > > nomination.
> >
> > Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
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]

And there never was any insult or anything close to that, just a
misunderstanding, which I believe was clarified.

A terça, 23 de jun de 2020, 08:56, revi  escreveu:

> Hi,
>
> > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> >
> > Nat insulted an ESEAP
> > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> > nomination.
>
> Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
> ___
> 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

[Gnangarra]

My apologies for that error

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 15:56, revi  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> >
> > Nat insulted an ESEAP
> > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> > nomination.
>
> Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
> ___
> 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: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

That one first, and second that it does not even matter. We should
appreciate that Nat came up with this statement, which is written in her
name, not even as a Board resolution, perfectly knowing that it would not
be fully accepted by the active part of the community, and she woull be a
target of attacks. I fully agree that the attacks are absolutely uncalled
for, even if many of us find the statement insufficient.

We are clearly in the middle of a pretty deep crisis (which was, to be
honest, fully predictable) and we must welcome all efforts to deal with the
crisis. It is unfortunate that these crises come all over and over again,
and I believe this is a structural problem (there is some helpful
discussion at the Meta talk page, which will probably not follow up as
similar discussions have never been followed up previously). This is not a
situation created by the current Board members, and whereas they are
partially responsible for not solving it (in the same sense they are
responsible for everything happening in the WikiVerse), there is no reason
they should resign over it.

Best regards
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM revi  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> >
> > Nat insulted an ESEAP
> > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> > nomination.
>
> Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
> ___
> 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

[revi]

Hi,

> 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> 
> Nat insulted an ESEAP
> affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> nomination.

Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
___
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

[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: 

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] 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, 

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] 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 

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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[James Salsman]

What did the legal department have to say about The Wiki Foundation?
Will Ward end up with that one?

Does the executive staff and Board have a position on supporting the
.ia domain name for the Internet Archive, with the provision that
wikiped.ia is assigned to the Foundation in perpetuity?

Best regards,
Jim

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:54 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> Thanks for working on this response. I thank you and the board for the care
> you have shown in this email. The upcoming August meeting is going to be an
> important one, as I understand from the email. We will look forward to its
> outcomes.
> There have been concerns that opinions or voices have not been heard. Other
> than the Qualtrics closed survey, opinions have been and are being shared
> in different channels such as Meta-Wiki, mailing list etc. I feel that may
> be taken into consideration, kindly, while preceding.
>
> I once again show my gratitude and sincerely thank you for taking time,
> especially on the weekends, and reaching out directly with help and
> detailed clarification.
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> 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 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Nat,

Thank you very much for managing to put out a statement in a reasonable
timeframe, despite the harsh conditions most of all endure now. I can only
imagine how hard it has been to get to that.
Above all, thank you a lot for the sincerity and for the courage on taking
a blame that I'm certain is not (at least entirely) yours

As a very first reaction,

"*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.*" - Of course you (Board) can, and it will have obvious
consequences. Stating that you can do whatever you please because you can,
looks unnecessary and aggressive. I wished you've not written that there

"*the exploratory project was and still is ongoing*" - The use of the word
"exploratory" here seems to directly contradict the established timeline
[1], which is about defining a concrete proposal and approving it or not,
not about exploring options. At least, not with the involvement of the
community. Can you please clarify?

"*The Board conversation about this is planned to happen during the August
meeting.*" - I hope you recall during that conversation that part of the
current Board terminated (or should have terminated) the mandate they were
elected to.

"*What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding?
The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3)
continue with it.*" - It is truly a relief that you are at least
considering as an option to stop or pause the branding project. However,
from the available timeline [1], what follows in August is the final
refinement, which seems to imply that whatever comes from the much
controversial survey going on - with all certainty, one of the 3
"Wikipedia" options - will be all that will be there to be continued. There
is no space nor time for any other version that does not include
"Wikipédia". Is this correct?

"*The currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible
outcome if the Foundation's (!) branding*" - This seems to imply the survey
is only about the Foundation "(!)" branding, but that's not what is written
there. This is how the survey starts: " With this survey, the 2030 Movement
Brand Project team invites your feedback on proposals for *movement* names
based on our best-known brand, Wikipedia. The proposed names apply to the
*movement*, the *affiliates* and the Foundation." You say the branding only
applies to the Foundation, the survey says it's also about affiliates, and
- and this is really surprising - to the whole movement, something it's not
really in the hands of the Board to decide, as the movement, as an organic
group of many different people with different opinions, voices, cultures,
is not controlled nor defined in the least by the Board. Could you please
clarify why you say the survey only applies to the Foundation, despite what
the survey itself states?

(when I write "you" here it is the Board, obviously, not you, Nat)

Thanks again for all your dedication, courage and sincerity,
Paulo

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline


Nataliia Tymkiv  escreveu no dia segunda, 22/06/2020
à(s) 01:44:

> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
Thanks for working on this response. I thank you and the board for the care
you have shown in this email. The upcoming August meeting is going to be an
important one, as I understand from the email. We will look forward to its
outcomes.
There have been concerns that opinions or voices have not been heard. Other
than the Qualtrics closed survey, opinions have been and are being shared
in different channels such as Meta-Wiki, mailing list etc. I feel that may
be taken into consideration, kindly, while preceding.

I once again show my gratitude and sincerely thank you for taking time,
especially on the weekends, and reaching out directly with help and
detailed clarification.
Thanks
User:Titodutta



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 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[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 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 be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides.

Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia Foundation
yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of the
Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals. From
2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the
brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not yet
made a decision to change the name to