Hi folks,
Now that the dust has settled a bit, I would like to expand on an idea
that’s been touched on a few times (most recently, in an editorial by
William Beutler [1]): the notion that WMF might be a more effective
organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
organizati
Hi all,
I'd like to add some thoughts to the discussion about the potential pros
and cons of spinning parts of the Wikimedia Foundation off. I’m writing
this in my personal capacity and this email might not represent the views
of the Wiki Education Foundation.
This is a comparably long note; the
I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the best
way would be to facilitate this conversation.
Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for discussion?
Also, I think it would be good to have an office hour, or more likely a
series of office hours over
I think these are interesting discussions. My first feedback -
Let's get as granular as possible about describing activities undertaken now.
Leave out the "by who" and org structure for the moment.
For example, I can even see five tech organization activities. Internal IT,
website ops, back
Hello Erik,
I don't disagree with the premise of your argument that an alternative
structure of the wikimedia movement would let some parts of the wikimedia
movement grow stronger and more effective in delivering a focused impact.
There is no doubt that North America could be self sustaining (peo
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
> Yes Edward, I referred to the WikiEd foundation dashboard. I may gave them
> another nickname by mistake;)
>
Well then - It's a good time to share that our team (Program Capacity &
Learning), with the su
Hi Erik,
Those are great ideas, and I'm think I can support most of them.
MediaWiki is indeed something we need to invest on much more. Or even
re-built it from scratch. It's the base to all our work and the future or
our projects. The idea of having an organization that this is 100% of his
missi
Hi Erik,
thanks for your post, I was thinking of bringing this up as I was part
of that very discussion in August / September 2011 when the Wikimedia
overall governance model was discussed.
The idea that cristalized back then and which I still find very
appealing was to split today's WMF into the
Yes Edward, I referred to the WikiEd foundation dashboard. I may gave them
another nickname by mistake;)
*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowl
Hi Itzik - a question for you
The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
> WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can use
> it around the world, not only in the US. It is a powerful tool that the WMF
> is not even close or plans to offer t
2016-03-18 9:01 GMT-07:00 Sydney Poore :
Hi Sydney!
> Right now the central hub of the global movement is WMF. Despite other
> recent problems. The WMF is doing a great job of regularly communicating
> about the world wide movement.
>
> There needs to be a successful transfer of the global missio
*WikiEd Foundation Dashboard
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Edward Galvez
wrote:
>
> Hi Itzik - a question for you
>
> The Education Foundation is also a good example - I spoke a lot with the
>> WMF's education team about the great EDUFund's dashboard and how we can
>> use
>> it around the wo
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> the notion that WMF might be a more effective
> organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off
> organizations and affiliates.
> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any
Erik, thank you for framing this discussion, I think your "Resilience,
Focus, Accountability" formula hits on some of the most important ways in
which the Wikimedia Foundation has failed. I share the concerns of Sydney
and Gerard however, and would like to ask some questions about how a real
Feder
On 2016-03-18 07:56, Erik Moeller wrote:
2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W :
I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the
best
way would be to facilitate this conversation.
Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for
discussion?
Hi Pine,
Thanks
Hoi,
Organising our movement in the format of a federation will not necessarily
do what you describe. As you assume that money flows to the places where
money is spend, you will not have a federation. A federation is based on
equal terms and when money is what keeps everone in line it is not a
fed
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:41 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
> at the end it all boils down to
> money. spending all money available and wanting more money never has
> been a problem. if there is dissent it was always about who has the
> say what the money is spent on, and where it is spent. i am co
Hello Erik, hello Gerard, hello all,
while Erik raised a very important topic and I will go into some of the
aspects I agree with him later in this mail I want at first say that
Gerard also mentioned some very important points that I strongly agree.
Splitting WMF has merits but also has disad
2016-03-17 22:54 GMT-07:00 Pine W :
> I agree that these options should be explored. I'm wondering what the best
> way would be to facilitate this conversation.
>
> Perhaps, Erik, would you be willing to set up a page on Meta for discussion?
Hi Pine,
Thanks for the comments! I wanted to start her
in breaking up (spinning parts off) the WMF we run the risk of creating
silos of information, knowledge and disconnecting one speciality from
another preventing cross pollination of ideas and innovation. It also
breaks the collaborative core of the projects which has created what we
enjoy and at th
Erik Moeller writes:
> == Potential test case: MediaWiki Foundation ==
>
> A "MediaWiki Foundation" has been proposed a few times and I
> suspect continues to have some currency within WMF.
This past January at the Developer Summit[1], there was an
unconference session for a meeting between the M
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 8:23 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> in breaking up (spinning parts off) the WMF we run the risk of creating
> silos of information, knowledge and disconnecting one speciality from
> another preventing cross pollination of ideas and innovation. It also
> breaks the collaborativ
Hi!
On 03/17/2016 07:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
>
> 1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
> independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
> within that organization.
>
> 2) Focus
Hi Eloquence
Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
spin-off this new organization ?.
Am I correct in assuming the Mediawiki software can be forked by
anybody interested along with attribution ?
Regard
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
> spin-off this new organization ?.
That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
remov
2016-03-24 3:35 GMT-07:00 Andre Engels :
>> Since the "Mediawiki" trademark was lost to WMF the day you and
>> Anthere placed the logo into public domain [1], how can the WMF now
>> spin-off this new organization ?.
> That's incorrect, putting something in the public domain does not
> remove trad
2016-03-21 13:53 GMT-07:00 Mark A. Hershberger :
> We've since held three meetings[3][4][5] and have planned two more.
> During the meeting planned for about six weeks from now[6], we intend
> to have a format that allows us to respond to questions or concerns from
> the larger community.
This is
Spinning off comes with issues, as we will encounter issues like we
currently have with the QRpedia coding as thats now under the control of
WMUK all of the data being collected is sbject to UK provacy issues that
resulted in all the reporting functions being shut down... We also add to
the issue t
28 matches
Mail list logo