FYI making main stream media http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840
On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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>
