Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Armenian wiki video
Indeed. It doesn't make sense to limit suggestions or offers of help to only being from members. Anyone is welcome if they have something constructive to say, member or not. Dan On 14 April 2014 14:13, Michael Peel wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Gordon Joly wrote: > > > On 13/04/14 16:16, Fæ wrote: > >> With regard to cooling it, I suppose it is hard to stop my experience > >> and long term frustration in being unable to follow through or have a > >> frank discussion on essential changes the charity needed and still > >> needs from leaking out in my emails. > > > > > > This list has members of the charity and non members. Hence, it cannot > > be used to discuss the registered charity (Wikimedia UK), since that > > could only be done by "members only" to have any validity. > > I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. Of course it can be used by non-members to > discuss the charity. What sort of validity are you referring to? > > Thanks, > Mike > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Armenian wiki video
On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:32, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 13/04/14 16:16, Fæ wrote: >> With regard to cooling it, I suppose it is hard to stop my experience >> and long term frustration in being unable to follow through or have a >> frank discussion on essential changes the charity needed and still >> needs from leaking out in my emails. > > > This list has members of the charity and non members. Hence, it cannot > be used to discuss the registered charity (Wikimedia UK), since that > could only be done by "members only" to have any validity. I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. Of course it can be used by non-members to discuss the charity. What sort of validity are you referring to? Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK leading volunteer numbers (G2a.1)
*Answers in-line* On 10 April 2014 13:22, Fæ wrote: > Thanks for the prompt reply. Could you provide a link to where the > trend in these measurements is now reported, or provide a specific > date as to when you will be reporting them to the members and the > board? > > The metrics will be reported in the quarterly FDC reports on Meta. BTW by agreement with FDC they will be two weeks later than other chapters to account for our strange year start of February. The next report will be published on the FDC portal on 15th May. This report will form the core of the board report. ANALYSIS > > This appears to mean that the Strategy monitoring plan[1] is > incorrect, as numbers of leading volunteers are not going to be > reported. Consequently the target agreed with the board for this year > of 140 is not meaningful and should be withdrawn. > > Presumably the commitment in the FDC bid of reaching 150 active > volunteers has to be officially withdrawn as it has not been reported > on in 2014 and it there will be no future reports of this number by > the charity. > We now have several different ways of measuring volunteer activity rather than the old blunt system which did at least reassure us that we were growing. We have revised down the active LEADING volunteer number forecast from 150 t0 140 in line with what we felt was happening. This differs from the old 'active' volunteers as it reflects people leading activities not simply attending. Andy - we did consider measuring by hours and we are designing our database, CIVICRM, to allow for this if we wanted to by recording how long an event was. That way we could query it to see how many volunteer hours were spent at an event and add the total of hours over the quarter. > > I note that the figure of 107 leading volunteers was the baseline for > 2013. If this is the same figure being reported in April 2014, then > the charity is not growing according to the original performance > indicator. > > I am concerned that the UK Board of Trustees has accepted that 'the > clock has been reset' on this Key Performance Indicator for the > charity. Unfortunately members and trustees will be unable to compare > performance on growth in volunteer numbers from 2013 to 2014 due to a > reworking of what the word "volunteer" means. As a pure mathematician > and an MBA graduate, I am having difficulty in getting any feel for > "volunteer activity units" as opposed to just providing a plain > English count of leading volunteers, or an equivalent credible > estimate of this number. I am happy that the trustees are able monitor > the performance of the charity using these more hypothetical concepts, > I look forward to reading the reports, reviewing the trend charts and > seeing a practical definition of what was counted to create the > reports. Hopefully the definition will be fixed and remain unchanged > for several years from this point in time, so we can compared > performance in one year to the next. It is a pity that no reports have > been published in 2014 so far. > Yes, the whole thing has changed and we will be having much SMARTER metrics. We all hope that we can show some stability in the way we measure what we do and this year will act as something of a baseline. There are however lots of indicators and proxies that we are developing as a chapter as can be seen clearly in our 2013-14 impact report to the FDC and will be demonstrated over the coming year. There have been reports in 2014, see the monthly reports, but the most reliable ones will but the quarterly reports to the FDC. > I recall the workshop in 2012 when it around about 20 minutes for > trustees and employees to name all 87 active volunteers. It is a pity > that this simple to understand and highly credible measurement is > being dropped altogether rather than being reported once per quarter > or even once a year to support the FDC bid. > Having talked to other chapters over the weekend we are doing well. We will do better and there are encouraging signs, such as new people who came to the London meet-up this weekend after the latest donor newsletter, and are now firmly in the clutches of Jonathan Cardy. > > Links > 1. > https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Strategy_monitoring_plan&oldid=55387 > > Fae > > On 10 April 2014 12:57, Jon Davies wrote: > > We have kept a log of active volunteers in the office for the last two > years > > at least. This has allowed us to report a gradual increase to a point > that > > we now can identify 107 people who participate in WMUK activiites. > > > > We have never claimed that it is more than a rough guide but it has done > its > > job (and other chapters have complimented us on it) and been able to > allay > > the anxieties that the chapter's volunteer base was shrinking . > > > > But it has real weaknesses. It is not accurate enough. We miss people who > > are active and forget to take off people who have, for instance, left the > > country. > > > > Apart fr
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Armenian wiki video
As another lurker on this list, I agree with Theresa; the moderators should be proactive in making sure that the tone of the list stays constructive. This doesn't mean silencing dissent and criticism (which I don't think is the case here), but it does mean that there should be certain minimum standards of courtesy and good manners adhered to. I'm sure that no rudeness was intended, but sometimes through the medium of email it can come across that way, and it's worth taking an extra few moments to review what you write and make sure it can't be taken in the wrong way. Being a mailing list admin must be a thankless job, so thanks to those who have taken on the job here for being proactive in this situation. Cheers, Craig On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Theresa Knott wrote: > As someone who reads the list but rarely contributes, may I make a > suggestion? Moderators absolutely should pull people up for using an > inappropriate tone in their emails. However this should be done, in the > first instance, privately. > > Theresa > On 13 Apr 2014 15:58, "Fæ" wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> Thanks for chipping in as a moderator. I look forward to the >> moderators being just as critical with other contributors on this list >> when they are perceived to be snarky or bitchy, I am sure you wish to >> treat all contributors here equally. >> >> As Harry mentions, there have been many posts far worse than mine on >> this list, yet moderators have not felt the need to step in before. >> >> Fae >> >> On 13 April 2014 15:54, James Farrar wrote: >> > No, Fae, I don't think that is obvious at all. It came across as snarky >> and >> > bitchy and Richard was well within his rights to call you on it. >> > >> > On 13 Apr 2014 15:52, "Fæ" wrote: >> >> >> >> Sure Harry, however I think it obvious that my email was not intended >> >> to be rude. Considering how rarely we see moderators of this list >> >> officially using their authority to criticise users, in fact I do not >> >> recall this happening in 2013 or 2014 until now, I find this >> >> incredibly odd. It seems reasonable to connect this sudden assumption >> >> of bad faith, to my recent posts to Wikimedia-l which raised the issue >> >> of the UK Chapter sending more people to the Wikimedia Conference this >> >> weekend than any other Chapter, including the hosts, with the >> >> inevitable response of being called a troll by one of the current >> >> trustees. >> >> >> >> The trend for the Chapter has been to stifle debate, as we have seen >> >> with how the Village Pump on the chapter wiki being reduced to >> >> announcements by employees and "positive statements" rather than open >> >> discussion of issues and problems. If this has started to extend to >> >> censorship of this list for vague perceptions of "tone" by Chapter >> >> employees, then I'm afraid that volunteers will end up writing >> >> anonymously on Wikipediocracy if they want to change anything or be >> >> heard. >> >> >> >> This list has always been presented as not managed by the Chapter. If >> >> the Chapter is now effectively controlling it, then I think it loses >> >> much of its value as a community sounding board. >> >> >> >> Fae >> >> >> >> On 13 April 2014 14:34, HJ Mitchell wrote: >> >> > Fae, >> >> > >> >> > I've seen worse emails to this list, but I can see Richard's point, >> >> > which is >> >> > that you could have written something to the effect of "Jon, would >> you >> >> > mind >> >> > including all the relevant information in your emails to the list", >> for >> >> > example, which has the same meaning but does not come across as >> >> > unnecessarily hostile. He wasn't asking you not to criticise, or not >> to >> >> > point out Jon's omission (if he was, I'd be jumping to your aid >> instead >> >> > of >> >> > Richard's), just to tone it down one notch for the benefit of >> everyone >> >> > else >> >> > subscribed to this list. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> >> > Harry Mitchell >> >> > http://enwp.org/User:HJ >> >> > Phone: 024 7698 0977 >> >> > Skype: harry_j_mitchell >> >> > On Sunday, 13 April 2014, 10:04, Fæ wrote: >> >> > No, I don't get it. >> >> > >> >> > Can someone please highlight exactly how this statement is >> unacceptably >> >> > rude? >> >> > "If you are going to repost emails to this list, please ensure you >> >> > include the relevant content." >> >> > >> >> > Fae >> >> > >> >> > On 13 April 2014 08:36, Richard Symonds >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> >> >> I feel that as a list moderator I should step in and say that, for a >> >> >> second >> >> >> there, the tone of this list dropped needlessly. Fae, your email >> came >> >> >> across >> >> >> as rude: whether you meant it or not, that's how it came across. >> >> >> >> >> >> The main reason that this mailing list isn't much used by the >> general >> >> >> editing population is in my experience because the tone is hostile. >> >> >> That >> >> >> has >> >> >> to change if this list is to stay rele
