2010/9/22 Austin Hair
>
>
> > Also the meeting notes mention "The first deliverable, a formal proposal
> to
> > the Board at its October meeting, was discussed. A first draft will be
> sent
> > to the workgroup in the next few days." - is this draft going to be
> public
> > as intended initially
oh I agree the entire process is so transparent...like mentioning the
existence of the group 10 days after their first meet.
That is the sort of thing I am talking about, the said group was formed
already had its first meeting and you are announcing it now more than 10
days later, its almost t
2010/9/23 Austin Hair :
> If you have better ideas about how to go about the process, great!
> Leave a note on the talk page where everyone can see it, and we'll go
> from there.
>
I suggest to do some basic work on meta page of the committee:
a) write a clear definition what "movement roles" mea
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM, geni wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 13:26, Austin Hair wrote:
>> This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone
>> interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular
>> milestones along the way.
>
> How do we stop it?
>
> Apart
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> thanks for sending around. Could you just give a link to where exactly on
> the wiki you would "the discussion" (very broad term :) ) like to take
> place? Which topics do you especially invite people to discuss /now/?
Great questions, Lodewijk.
Dear All,
I would just like to point out that this specific working group is dealing
with the relationship of chapters, the Foundation and possible other forms
of Wikimedia groups that have offline activities. In this sense, no outcome
of the proposal put to the Board or the Charter that should co
On 22 September 2010 13:26, Austin Hair wrote:
> This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone
> interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular
> milestones along the way.
How do we stop it?
Apart from the usual issues this looks like a textbook way of k
This group is talking about the Wikimedia organization, so it is no more
than logical that people heavily involved in that will be the ones thinking
about it. Besides that, although Austin did not mention that in this
specific email, it has been pointed out every time when I spoke with people
about
why not throw in florence and aprhabhala into the mix and we can round up
the same "advisory group" cabal.
maybe they are in rotation for the next one..
anyway seeing the same names over and over again irked me and I decided to
comment on the issue which like many other editors I try to avoid
Lets see..
Austin- chapcom member/chair
Arne Klempert-chapcom member
Bence Damokos-chapcom member
Samuel klein-chapcom member + many others
Morgan Chan- communication committee(status unknown)
bishkha datta- board member
barry newstead-employee
jon hugget-outside employee/contractor
t
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and
research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those
interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject
within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any move
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same people that
keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff,
and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Se
Hi Austin,
thanks for sending around. Could you just give a link to where exactly on
the wiki you would "the discussion" (very broad term :) ) like to take
place? Which topics do you especially invite people to discuss /now/?
Also the meeting notes mention "The first deliverable, a formal proposa
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a
year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the
movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a
document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia
organization are clearly defined
14 matches
Mail list logo
