[Wikimedia-l] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi y'all!

*Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for
Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*

Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of
participation:
- More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including:
-- Art+Feminism User Group
-- WikiDonne's User Group
-- Wikimedia Ghana User Group
-- Wikimedia Poland
- More than 1,000 individual participants
- Nearly 2,300 statements

In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we
will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback,
concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly,
to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so
helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.

Some things I’ve heard:

- Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come
together
- Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these
topics
- Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision
- A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the
strategic direction as possible

I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we
could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After
discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move
to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide
more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will
use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices
track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.

Here is the new proposed timeline:

- July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the
strategic direction.
- August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the direction.
- September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.

As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to
participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New
Voices content.[3]

Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and
again, thank you for the feedback!

*On a related note*

As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process
and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has
been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great
speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100
community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference
activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the
deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have
not done so already - please register today![8]

Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)
Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate
[5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou
[8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

--
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

[phone] ext. 6635
[phone]
***@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org

[Pine W]

Hi Katherine,

Thanks for the update.

My impression is that the strategy process is time intensive for the staff
and the consultants involved, and I am concerned that extending the
timeline like this will result in significant extra costs on top of what
was already understood to be an expensive process, and my impression from
your email is that the benefit from this extension will primarily go to the
relatively small number of users, staff, and other stakeholders who are
deeply involved in some affiliates.

How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source
are the funds being drawn?

Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who
are not involved with affiliates?

I am mindful of the many things that would be good to do in the Wikiverse
that aren't being done due to financial and HR constraints, and I am
concerned that this extension of the timeline will cost a lot of money (it
wouldn't surprise me if the number was five or six figures) that could
instead have been used for any number of other good projects.

Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?

Thank you,

Pine


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Katherine Maher <***@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hi y'all!
>
> *Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for
> Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*
>
> Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of
> participation:
> - More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including:
> -- Art+Feminism User Group
> -- WikiDonne's User Group
> -- Wikimedia Ghana User Group
> -- Wikimedia Poland
> - More than 1,000 individual participants
> - Nearly 2,300 statements
>
> In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we
> will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.
>
> Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback,
> concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly,
> to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so
> helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.
>
> Some things I’ve heard:
>
> - Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come
> together
> - Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these
> topics
> - Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision
> - A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the
> strategic direction as possible
>
> I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we
> could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After
> discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move
> to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide
> more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will
> use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices
> track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.
>
> Here is the new proposed timeline:
>
> - July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the
> strategic direction.
> - August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the
> direction.
> - September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.
>
> As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to
> participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New
> Voices content.[3]
>
> Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and
> again, thank you for the feedback!
>
> *On a related note*
>
> As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process
> and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has
> been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great
> speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100
> community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference
> activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the
> deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have
> not done so already - please register today![8]
>
> Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)
> Katherine
>
> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Sources
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Participate
> [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou
> [8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
> [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_
> movement_strategy_process
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> [phone] ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
> [phone] <(415)%20712-4873>
> ***@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>

[Strainu]

2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who
> are not involved with affiliates?

Hi Pine,

I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was
the main feedback that I gave after the last phase of the
consultation. I think it is extremely important that as many people as
possible can weigh in on the process, so that they can, hopefully,
identify with and support the output of the consultation, even if it
might not fully reflect their own opinions.

Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
available in the strategy process.

By asking different members of the strategy team it became obvious
that the delay was caused by organizational tasks, which should have
been done before Cycle 2 begins, but the time was insufficient.
Therefore, I believe that extending the timeline is a good idea - a
cycle should only begin after it's been thoroughly prepared and
outreach can begin from day 1. If the WMF team is efficient enough is
a totally different question, on which I don't have an opinion.

Strainu

[Yaroslav Blanter]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> who
> > are not involved with affiliates?
>
>
>
> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> available in the strategy process.
>
>
> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.

Cheers
Yaroslav

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
otherwise it will not get published [2].

A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
there is no research into its value.

The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.

Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.

Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
Thanks,
GerardM


[1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
traffic.
[2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
Wikipedia..

On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who
> > > are not involved with affiliates?
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > available in the strategy process.
> >
> >
> > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Leinonen Teemu]

Hej,

Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-) is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be great.

-Teemu

> Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello 13.00:
>
> Hoi,
> The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
> can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
> effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> otherwise it will not get published [2].
>
> A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
> other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
> there is no research into its value.
>
> The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
>
> Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
> far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
> and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
>
> Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> traffic.
> [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> Wikipedia..
>
>> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
>>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who
>>>> are not involved with affiliates?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
>>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
>>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
>>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
>>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
>>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
>>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
>>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
>>> available in the strategy process.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
>> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
>> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
>> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
>> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
>> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
>> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
>> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
>> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
>> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
>> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
>> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
>> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
>> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
>> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Rogol Domedonfors]

This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <***@aalto.fi>
wrote:

> Hej,
>
> Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-)
> is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large
> majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be
> great.
>
> -Teemu
>
> > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> 13.00:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> bias
> > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> educational
> > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> >
> > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> projects
> > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> and
> > there is no research into its value.
> >
> > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> so
> > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> message
> > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> >
> > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > traffic.
> > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > Wikipedia..
> >
> >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who
> >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> >>> available in the strategy process.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> None
> >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> Round
> >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on
> 3
> >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> have
> >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> May
> >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
seriously.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <***@aalto.fi>
> wrote:
>
> > Hej,
> >
> > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> :-)
> > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> large
> > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be
> > great.
> >
> > -Teemu
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> > 13.00:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who
> > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i
> n
> > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on
> > 3
> > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Gnangarra]

I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects

On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
> where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
> to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
> seriously.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <***@aalto.fi
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hej,
> > >
> > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> > :-)
> > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> reasons,
> > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > large
> > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia.
> If
> > > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be
> > > great.
> > >
> > > -Teemu
> > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> kello
> > > 13.00:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > >>> who
> > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > > None
> > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > Round
> > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i
> > n
> > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on
> > > 3
> > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but I
> > > have
> > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > be
> > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did
not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English
Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not
care and do not need to care".

What I am saying is that English Wikipedia is less than half our traffic
and it serves some 30% of our potential public. Given that there is a bias
in research and interest, we did not even give a thought on how to grow the
bottom 250 Wikipedias to be more useful for their public. For most of them
we do not need university level articles, we need to start with good enough
articles and start probably on a college level or the level of the last
year of primary school.

We do not have the content relevant for many cultures in English Wikipedia
so even the thought of translating what exists in English Wikipedia is too
much of a good thing. We do not have the data in Wikidata so we cannot even
suggest what to write in English.

The notion that thanks to English Wikipedia we have the standing the
funding is correct. Now lets do our job for the other 70%. If this is not a
diversity issue what is?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 12:42, Gnangarra <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
> see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
> global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
> process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
> > where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we
> going
> > to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
> > seriously.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <
> ***@aalto.fi
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hej,
> > > >
> > > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an
> opinion
> > > :-)
> > > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south
> are
> > > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> > reasons,
> > > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > > large
> > > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the
> en-Wikipedia.
> > If
> > > > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would
> be
> > > > great.
> > > >
> > > > -Teemu
> > > >
> > > > > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> > kello
> > > > 13.00:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1].
> This
> > > > bias
> > > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > > educational
> > > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> > developed,
> > > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > > viable
> > > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia
> because
> > > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > > projects
> > > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > > readers
> > > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> > projects
> > > > and
> > > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > > >
> > > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > > collaboration
> > > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > > habitually
> > > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > > served
> > > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> > driven
> > > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global
> south
> > > in
> > > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> > process
> > > > so
> > > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > > message
> > > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the
> WMF
> > > > > traffic.
> > > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies
> on
> > > > > Wikipedia..
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > > people
> > > > >>> who
> > > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> > the
> > > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
> life
> > > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> > carefully,
> > > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
> particular
> > > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> > weeks
> > > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
> to
> > > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> > was
> > > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
> some
> > > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
> ignored.
> > > > None
> > > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> > time.
> > > > Round
> > > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions
> opened
> > i
> > > n
> > > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really
> discuss
> > > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
> pages
> > > on
> > > > 3
> > > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> > but I
> > > > have
> > > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in
> Round
> > 1.
> > > > May
> > > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
> really
> > > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> > completely
> > > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form
> a
> > > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> > to
> > > be
> > > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > > next
> > > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> Yaroslav
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > > > >>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Anna Stillwell]

Rogol,

The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.

There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:

- organized groups
- on-wiki
- experts
- new voices

I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.

- Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland.
She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of
craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.

New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in
different markets.

- *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has grown
from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her
innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.


- *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical
doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll
need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.


- *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global
Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group.
Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.


- I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in
MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could
be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle
East.


- And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved
in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a number of
years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname,
Jorge.

These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene
them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.

One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is
because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all
need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing
community discussions.

For the on-wiki team:

- We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this
process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between
Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.

Just to clarify the record.
/a

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <***@aalto.fi>
> wrote:
>
> > Hej,
> >
> > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> :-)
> > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> large
> > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be
> > great.
> >
> > -Teemu
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> > 13.00:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who
> > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i
> n
> > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on
> > 3
> > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

Thank you for that and for writing it on a Sunday. Unfortunately I missed
it originally in the two dozen messages in this thread. You mention the
names of individuals outside the US who are helping and that is good to
see. By "consultants" I meant the companies hired to help you, such as
Lake Research Partners, Wellspring Insight, Dot Connector Studio and Lutman
& Associates – probably I should have said "consultancies".

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
> on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
>
> There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
>
> - organized groups
> - on-wiki
> - experts
> - new voices
>
> I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.
>
> - Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
> previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia
> Deutschland.
> She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover
> of
> craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.
>
> New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in
> different markets.
>
> - *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
> Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has
> grown
> from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through
> her
> innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.
>
>
> - *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
> and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical
> doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll
> need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
>
>
> - *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
> born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global
> Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his
> group.
> Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.
>
>
> - I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
> believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in
> MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it
> could
> be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the
> Middle
> East.
>
>
> - And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
> from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been
> involved
> in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a
> number of
> years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment.
> Perdoname,
> Jorge.
>
> These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene
> them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.
>
> One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is
> because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all
> need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing
> community discussions.
>
> For the on-wiki team:
>
> - We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this
> process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between
> Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.
>
> Just to clarify the record.
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <***@aalto.fi
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hej,
> > >
> > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> > :-)
> > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> reasons,
> > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > large
> > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia.
> If
> > > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be
> > > great.
> > >
> > > -Teemu
> > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> kello
> > > 13.00:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > >>> who
> > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > > None
> > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > Round
> > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i
> > n
> > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on
> > > 3
> > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but I
> > > have
> > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > be
> > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Anna Stillwell]

Gerard,

Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.

I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.

Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
quickly as they can coherently write it up.

There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
contextual search and natural language processing to support better
translation).

Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
support some other end(s).

You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.

I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
everyone is listening.

Warmly,
/a

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
> can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
> effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> otherwise it will not get published [2].
>
> A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
> other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
> there is no research into its value.
>
> The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
>
> Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
> far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
> and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
>
> Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> traffic.
> [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> Wikipedia..
>
> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> > > who
> > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > available in the strategy process.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
> > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> Round
> > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
> > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> have
> > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> May
> > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the
team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support
in standards.

The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small
language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia. When we do
not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not
even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I
described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].

The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in
its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
interlinked content.

We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This
can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a
language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.

We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have
written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make
search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links
and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
articles on the same subject share similar links.

Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential
treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
English Wikipedia vision. This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is
not welcomed by most if at all.
Thanks,
GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-wikipedia-using-local-news.html
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
[3]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-sister-projects-in-search.html




On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
>
> I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
> "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
>
> Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
> mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
> They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> quickly as they can coherently write it up.
>
> There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> translation).
>
> Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> support some other end(s).
>
> You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
> peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
> constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
> biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
> New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
>
> I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
> voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> everyone is listening.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> ***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> bias
> > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> educational
> > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> >
> > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> projects
> > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> and
> > there is no research into its value.
> >
> > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> so
> > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> message
> > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> >
> > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > traffic.
> > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > Wikipedia..
> >
> > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > > > who
> > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> None
> > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on 3
> > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Anna Stillwell]

Gerard,

In line.

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.


Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
explore the problem.


> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support
> in standards.
>

I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.


> The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small
> language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.


You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
is what you’re saying, I agree.


> When we do
> not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not
> even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I
> described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
>

Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.

But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
best addressed by other movement players.


> The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in
> its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> interlinked content.
>

Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.

I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
non-existent.


>
> We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
>

I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
between that keeps me up at night.

Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
spoken language in the world [citation needed].

>
> We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have
> written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make
> search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links
> and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> articles on the same subject share similar links.
>
> Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential
> treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
>

I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English
Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do,
but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.

In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks
like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global
movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not
integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are
the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that
emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care
about.


> Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
> English Wikipedia vision.


No argument from me. I agree.


> This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
> understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position
> is not welcomed by most if at all.
>

I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it
appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates.
I welcome your position.


> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-
> wikipedia-using-local-news.html
> [2]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-
> lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
> [3]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-
> sister-projects-in-search.html
>
>
>
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
> >
> > I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
> > "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> > encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> > multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
> >
> > Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> > deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have
> to
> > mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
> > They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> > quickly as they can coherently write it up.
> >
> > There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> > subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> > contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> > translation).
> >
> > Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> > movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> > technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> > support some other end(s).
> >
> > You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
> your
> > peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
> are
> > constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
> our
> > biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
> > New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
> >
> > I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
> have
> > voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> > everyone is listening.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > /a
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > ***@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > > > who
> > > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > > Round
> > > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i n
> > > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on 3
> > > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but
> I
> > > have
> > > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> > be
> > > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Amir E. Aharoni]

> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
> in standards.
>

I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.


Thank you both, but... The devil is in the details. Some details that are
really, really relevant to this discussion.

First, credit: This particular Collation work was almost completely done by
Brian Wolff and not by the Language team (brilliant work; thank you,
Brian). I only helped a little bit with code review and deployment.

Even more importantly, this work was not on the roadmap for either of us as
WMF staffers. We did as a pet project.

So while I'm happy that people have noticed this work and found it useful,
it must be remembered that it was executed despite the Foundation's
planning, not thanks to it. In all the planning discussions I am repeating
that that much more resources need to go to to our software
internationalization infrastructure, but it's not really happening. It's
quite wrong that much of the Web's most multilingual site's
internationalization infrastructure is done so slowly and in pet projects.

[Pine W]

This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
conversation.

If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):

* How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)

* Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
perspective.

* Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?

Thanks,

Pine

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello Pine,

Good evening. In line.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> conversation.
>
> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
>

First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.

We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
it")... so that is the background reasoning.


> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>

We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.


> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> perspective.
>

The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
say it.

>
> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
> the strategy process?
>

We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

Always good to hear from you,
/a


>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Fæ]

On 27 June 2017 at 04:33, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
...
>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
>> the strategy process?
>>
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> Always good to hear from you,
> /a

Anna,

I'd love to examine the more detailed monthly or quarterly financial
reports that demonstrate your assurance, and can be both examined and
understood by volunteers like us. Could you provide a link to them
please? No doubt the WMF wrote transparency and accountability right
into the contracts, so that being transparent and accountable is not
considered a "waste of the strategy budget" but instead is an activity
absolutely critical to its success.

Thanks,
Fae

[Pine W]

Hi Anna,

>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
>
>We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.

Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
cost,
and from what source are the funds being drawn?


>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>> perspective.
>>

> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.

OK, that makes sense.

>
> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
> the strategy process?
>

> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.

Pine


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hello Pine,
>
> Good evening. In line.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > conversation.
> >
> > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> would
> > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> >
>
> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
>
> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
>
>
> > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
> > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>
> > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > perspective.
> >
>
> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> Always good to hear from you,
> /a
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Anna Stillwell]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> >> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
> >
> >We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
> Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
> cost,
> and from what source are the funds being drawn?
>
>
> >> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >> perspective.
> >>
>
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> > We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
> a
> > lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> > say it.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax.


WMF's standards are not lax. Far from it.


> This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Pine,
> >
> > Good evening. In line.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> > would
> > > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >
> >
> > First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design.
> We
> > had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> > first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> learn
> > to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> >
> > We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> > and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> > translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> seen
> > all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> > it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> >
> >
> > > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> > > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >
> >
> > We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> > of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >
> >
> > > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> > > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > > perspective.
> > >
> >
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> > We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
> a
> > lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> > say it.
> >
> > >
> > > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> > in
> > > the strategy process?
> > >
> >
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > Always good to hear from you,
> > /a
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Robert Fernandez]

What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to
believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What
measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
specific enough answer?


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
> very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Robert,

Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot
of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to
> believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
> procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What
> measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
> regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
> do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
> specific enough answer?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> satisfied.
> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems
> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Pine, Weren't you the person who pushed for months consult and interview
and design when I wanted to make mediawiki colors 5% brighter? How come
deciding on future of Wikimedia movement is too expensive?

Best

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot
> of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
> then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
> Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
> in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
> are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
> that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
> and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
> whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
> it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <***@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to
> > believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
> > procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What
> > measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
> > regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
> > do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
> > specific enough answer?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within
> our
> > > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> > detail
> > > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Robert Fernandez]

You're right, it is way too much weight to assign to it. It's a perfectly
reasonable statement that can be read as "The fact that we are under budget
is a sign that our normal fiscal controls are working" so I'm baffled that
it is being interpreted as "We don't care what we spend money on at all as
long as it is under this arbitrary number".

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot
> of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
> then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
> Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
> in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
> are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
> that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
> and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
> whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
> it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to
>> believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
>> procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What
>> measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
>> regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
>> do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
>> specific enough answer?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
>> need
>> > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
>> detail
>> > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>> >
>> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
>> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
>> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
>> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
>> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
>> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
>> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
>> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
>> satisfied.
>> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
>> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
>> seems
>> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>

[Gregory Varnum]

Pine,

A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.

Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).

On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board), three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.

You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.

• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
• 2: Number of Board members now involved
• 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
• 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
• $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)

Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.

We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it was written.

Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)



> On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anna,
>
>>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>>
>>
>> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
> Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
> cost,
> and from what source are the funds being drawn?
>
>
>>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>>> perspective.
>>>
>
>> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
>> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
>> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
>> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
>> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
>> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
>> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
>> say it.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
>>
>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
>> the strategy process?
>>
>
>> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
>> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
>> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
> very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Pine,
>>
>> Good evening. In line.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
>> would
>>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
>>>
>>
>> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
>> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
>> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
>> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
>>
>> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
>> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
>> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
>> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
>> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
>>
>>
>>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>>>
>>
>> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>>
>>
>>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>
>> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
>> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
>> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
>> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
>> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>>
>> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
>> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
>> say it.
>>
>>>
>>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
>> in
>>> the strategy process?
>>>
>>
>> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
>> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
>> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>>
>> Always good to hear from you,
>> /a
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Greg and Anna

This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was
happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
multi-million dollar project.

Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you
share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
help you.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <***@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Pine,
>
> A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
>
> Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> 2018).
>
> On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the
> cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling
> our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board),
> three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
>
> You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> this request thus far in the service of transparency.
>
> • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> salary)
>
> Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> why we have established processes.
>
> We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it
> was written.
>
> Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Anna,
> >
> >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >>
> >>
> >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >
> > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected
> to
> > cost,
> > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> >
> >
> >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >>> perspective.
> >>>
> >
> >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > groups
> >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> learning a
> >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> >> say it.
> >
> > OK, that makes sense.
> >
> >>
> >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> >> the strategy process?
> >>
> >
> >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> satisfied.
> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems
> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> ***@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Pine,
> >>
> >> Good evening. In line.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> >>> conversation.
> >>>
> >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> >> would
> >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> >>>
> >>
> >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> design. We
> >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> learn
> >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> >>
> >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
> groups
> >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> >> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> seen
> >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> >> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> >>
> >>
> >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >>
> >>
> >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >>> perspective.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >>
> >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> learning a
> >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> >> say it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> >> in
> >>> the strategy process?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >>
> >> Always good to hear from you,
> >> /a
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Robert Fernandez]

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
> transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was
> happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
> community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
> hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
> Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
> multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
> about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
> able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
> pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you
> share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
> build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
> help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <***@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> > things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> > related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> > 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> > imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> > from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> > to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> > demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> > this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> > • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> > • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> > • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> > • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> > provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> > would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> > level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> > community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> > why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >
> > > OK, that makes sense.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > in
> > >> the strategy process?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > ***@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello Pine,
> > >>
> > >> Good evening. In line.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > >>> conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> > >> would
> > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > design. We
> > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> direction
> > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> > learn
> > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > >>
> > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
> > groups
> > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> > >> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> > seen
> > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> > >> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >>
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > >> in
> > >>> the strategy process?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >>
> > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > >> /a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pine
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Peter Southwood]

Robert,
What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
>initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the
> value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community
> what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place
> itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours
> of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going
> to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control
> over this multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible
> question about a point of financial management you will be more ready,
> willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the
> community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more
> information you share with the community, the more acceptance,
> goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better
> placed the community wil be to help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum
> <***@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number
> > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for
> > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over
> > Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 -
> > June 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more
> > on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on
> > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with
> > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample
> > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and
> > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the
> > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior
> > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours:
> > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated
> > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of
> > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided
> > not to provide that response because we have ample financial
> > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending
> > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You
> > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way
> > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith
> > that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > >> stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >
> > > OK, that makes sense.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > in
> > >> the strategy process?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are
> > > within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to
> > > the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to
> > > hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This
> > > convinces me all the more that my original request is important
> > > for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much
> > > higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have
> > > been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation.
> > > Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > ***@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello Pine,
> > >>
> > >> Good evening. In line.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying
> > >>> reading the conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier
> > >>> post, I
> > >> would
> > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > design. We
> > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> direction
> > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we
> > >> would
> > learn
> > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > >>
> > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all
> > >> fronts--organized
> > groups
> > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time
> > >> for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts
> > >> (e.g., "we've
> > seen
> > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect
> > >> upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > >> stakeholder
> > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >>
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
> > >>> control
> costs
> > >> in
> > >>> the strategy process?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >>
> > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > >> /a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pine
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > >>> Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscr
> > >>> ibe>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > >> Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscri
> > >> be>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Robert

I speak only for myself, as I presume do you. I make observations that
relate to the Foundation, the wider Community and their interactions, as I
presume do you. I sometimes comment on those matters here, as do you.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Peter Southwood <
***@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Robert,
> What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia
> movement strategy process (#19)
>
> >By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
> >initially,
>
> Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
> their response was quite clear.
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Greg and Anna
> >
> > This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the
> > value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community
> > what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place
> > itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours
> > of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going
> > to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control
> > over this multi-million dollar project.
> >
> > Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible
> > question about a point of financial management you will be more ready,
> > willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the
> > community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more
> > information you share with the community, the more acceptance,
> > goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better
> > placed the community wil be to help you.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum
> > <***@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pine,
> > >
> > > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number
> > > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> > >
> > > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for
> > > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over
> > > Fiscal Year
> > > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 -
> > > June 2018).
> > >
> > > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more
> > > on
> > the
> > > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> > calling
> > > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> > Board),
> > > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on
> > > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with
> > > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample
> > > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> > >
> > > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and
> > > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the
> > > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> > >
> > > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior
> > > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours:
> > > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated
> > > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of
> > > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > > salary)
> > >
> > > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided
> > > not to provide that response because we have ample financial
> > > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending
> > > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You
> > > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way
> > > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> > >
> > > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith
> > > that
> > it
> > > was written.
> > >
> > > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anna,
> > > >
> > > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > > >>> from
> > what
> > > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > > >>> that
> > > the
> > > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > > >>> of
> > the
> > > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > > >> process
> > and
> > > all
> > > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > > >
> > > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> > projected
> > > to
> > > > cost,
> > > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > > >>> for
> > > people
> > > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > > >> stakeholder
> > > > groups
> > > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > > non
> > > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > > >
> > > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > > learning a
> > > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > > >> more
> > time
> > > to
> > > >> say it.
> > > >
> > > > OK, that makes sense.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> > costs
> > > in
> > > >> the strategy process?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > > >> don't
> > > need
> > > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > > >> lower level of
> > detail
> > > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are
> > > > within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to
> > > > the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to
> > > > hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This
> > > > convinces me all the more that my original request is important
> > > > for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to
> control costs in the strategy process.
> > > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much
> > > > higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have
> > > > been
> > > satisfied.
> > > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation.
> > > > Something
> > > seems
> > > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > ***@wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello Pine,
> > > >>
> > > >> Good evening. In line.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying
> > > >>> reading the conversation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier
> > > >>> post, I
> > > >> would
> > > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > > design. We
> > > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> > direction
> > > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we
> > > >> would
> > > learn
> > > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > > >>
> > > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all
> > > >> fronts--organized
> > > groups
> > > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time
> > > >> for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts
> > > >> (e.g., "we've
> > > seen
> > > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect
> > > >> upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > > >>> from
> > what
> > > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > > >>> that
> > > the
> > > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > > >>> of
> > the
> > > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > > >> process
> > and
> > > all
> > > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > > >>> for
> > > people
> > > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > > >> stakeholder
> > > groups
> > > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > > non
> > > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > > >>
> > > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > > learning a
> > > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > > >> more
> > time
> > > to
> > > >> say it.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
> > > >>> control
> > costs
> > > >> in
> > > >>> the strategy process?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > > >> don't
> > > need
> > > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > > >> lower level of
> > detail
> > > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > > >> /a
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pine
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > >>> Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscr
> > > >>> ibe>
> > > >>>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > >> Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscri
> > > >> be>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

[Pine W]

I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
staff.

Pine

[Pine W]

Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.

Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.

> Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).

Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
start. How much is the timeline extension projected
to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an
analysis of the cost of the extension was done
before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.

I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other
issues that have come up.

Thanks,

Pine


On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
> approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
> posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
> and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
> to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
> to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
> holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
> holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
> should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
> staff.
>
> Pine
>
>

[Pine W]

Hi WMF folks,

I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.

Pine


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
>
> Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
> following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
> will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
>
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> > last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
> million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> > 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
>
> Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
> start. How much is the timeline extension projected
> to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an
> analysis of the cost of the extension was done
> before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
> identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
> and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.
>
> I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other
> issues that have come up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
>> approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
>> posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
>> and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
>> to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
>> to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
>> holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
>> holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
>> should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
>> staff.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> In line.
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> ***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> > that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> > serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
>
>
> Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
> explore the problem.
>
>
> > When you look at the
> > team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> > effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
> support
> > in standards.
> >
>
> I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
> that view.
>
>
> > The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
> small
> > language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> > bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
>
>
> You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
> is what you’re saying, I agree.
>
>
> > When we do
> > not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
> not
> > even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> > write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
> as I
> > described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
> >
>
> Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
> languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
> more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
>
> But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
> saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
> the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
> whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
> best addressed by other movement players.
>
>
> > The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> > pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> > be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
> in
> > its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> > requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> > interlinked content.
> >
>
> Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
> is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
> pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
> also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
> agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
> to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
> this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
>
> I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
> was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
> non-existent.
>
>
> >
> > We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> > Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> > number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> > This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> > of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
> >
>
> I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
> to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
> movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
> like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
> between that keeps me up at night.
>
> Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
> agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
> well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
> spoken language in the world [citation needed].
>
> >
> > We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> > This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
> have
> > written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will
> make
> > search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between
> links
> > and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> > articles on the same subject share similar links.
> >
> > Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given
> preferential
> > treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
> >
>
> I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English
> Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do,
> but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.
>
> In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks
> like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global
> movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not
> integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are
> the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that
> emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care
> about.
>
>
> > Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
> > English Wikipedia vision.
>
>
> No argument from me. I agree.
>
>
> > This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
> > understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position
> > is not welcomed by most if at all.
> >
>
> I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it
> appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates.
> I welcome your position.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-
> > wikipedia-using-local-news.html
> > [2]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-
> > lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
> > [3]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-
> > sister-projects-in-search.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <***@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
> > >
> > > I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions
> is
> > > "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> > > encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> > > multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
> > >
> > > Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> > > deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to
> have
> > to
> > > mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New
> Voices.
> > > They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> > > quickly as they can coherently write it up.
> > >
> > > There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> > > subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> > > contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> > > translation).
> > >
> > > Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> > > movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> > > technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> > > support some other end(s).
> > >
> > > You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
> > your
> > > peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
> > are
> > > constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
> > our
> > > biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of
> work:
> > > New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
> > >
> > > I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
> > have
> > > voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> > > everyone is listening.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > > /a
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > ***@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <***@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> for
> > > > people
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> > the
> > > > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
> life
> > > > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> > carefully,
> > > > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
> particular
> > > > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> > weeks
> > > > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
> to
> > > > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> > was
> > > > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
> some
> > > > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
> ignored.
> > > None
> > > > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > > Round
> > > > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> > i n
> > > > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
> pages
> > > on 3
> > > > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> > 1.
> > > > May
> > > > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
> really
> > > > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > > be
> > > > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>