Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting some kind of response or engagement - probably approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of course.
Anthony Cole On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to > accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they > don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're > only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million? > > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted > before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't know > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.) > > Risker/Anne > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anne, regarding: > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value > > sought is higher than that amount." > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be > > *advised > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or > > prepared. > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would > like > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large > > > staff doing lots of things. > > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely > > with > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of > > its > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any > organization. > > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I > > would > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the > > > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve > acceptance > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they > > should > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant > applications > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't > > believe > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance > > notification, > > > though. > > > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to > be > > a > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that > were > > > not > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people > > like > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia > > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that > > > official > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in > the > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve > this... > > > > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What > I > > do > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to > > stop > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for > > not > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko > > and > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment. > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gerard, > > > > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the > > sand > > > > and > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh > > > look! > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything. > > > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it > > you > > > > are > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? > > > When > > > > > are > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us > > > > > forward. > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to > > > achieve? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and > what > > > > have > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she > > was > > > to > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may > not > > > like > > > > > it > > > > > > and that is ok. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good > > > > > questions > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is > > it > > > > not > > > > > > > mentioned in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16 > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for > > opacity > > > > > about > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the > community > > > > about > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore > the > > > > > > question > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel > beyond > > > an > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise > > thinking > > > > > about > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that > > > > > direction, > > > > > > > especially without consulting the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about > WMF > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan > to > > > > > address > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about > > our > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult > to > > > have > > > > > > those > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. > > The > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF > staff > > > is > > > > > > making > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more > > > difficult > > > > to > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost > control > > > of > > > > > this > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. > > > > Personally, > > > > > I > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable > of > > > > > > restoring > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and > > > > > goodwill. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am > > > > > > interested > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[email protected]> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to > > > > > Wikimedia > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is > > a] > > > > > system > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on > the > > > > > > Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be > all > > > > > > > open/public > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and > still > > > not > > > > a > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our > > > > searches > > > > > > > > across projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not > on > > > the > > > > > > Board > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget > for > > > > > > 2015–2016 > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us > to > > > > which > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this > > > > question > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good night! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dj > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
