Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015
Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
slides for those meetings are now available:

Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015

Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015

Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015

Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015

Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design
Research, and Security teams):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015

Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
Team Practices:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015

As usual, much of this information will also be available in
consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
which is planned to be published on July 30.

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising +
Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.

Thanks,
Anne

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
> slides for those meetings are now available:
>
> Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015
>
> Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015
>
> Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015
>
> Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
> Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015
>
> Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design
> Research, and Security teams):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015
>
> Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
> Team Practices:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015
>
> As usual, much of this information will also be available in
> consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
> which is planned to be published on July 30.
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>




--
*Anne Gomez* // Product Manager, Fundraising
https://wikimediafoundation.org/


*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate
<http://donate.wikimedia.org>. *
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
I appreciate the combined QRs. Questions and comments:

1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF
Board may eventually ratify.

2. CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events
beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the
list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access
to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among
the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even
if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a
basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary.
This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia,
both physical and virtual.

3. What are the goals for the CA meeting with Stewards?

4. For F&A, I propose that next year there is an additional measure of
success for the Annual Plan that goes something like this: "Complete annual
plan draft with all supporting documents such as budget tables and job
descriptions will be published for community review by April 15. Community
review and discussion period will happen through May 15, with staff
responding to each question within one week of the question being asked.
Annual Plan revisions, taking community feedback into account, are
completed by June 1 for Board to review during the full month of June. At
least one Board meeting during which the Annual Plan is reviewed will be
open to the community through remote video participation."

5. A couple of teams in a few departments seem to have spent significant
time on simply developing their goals for the next year. The amount of time
being used on planning seems excessive in some cases. I would suggest
developing standardized processes for goal development, perhaps with the
assistance of Team Practices, Learning & Evaluation, and/or Human Resources.

6. A Communications Department goal was to "Advance Wikimedia movement
goals through Executive Director visits and speeches". I feel the need to
ask if it's necessary for the WMF ED to travel so much when neither senior
position in WMF technology and engineering is filled, and the ED isn't
keeping up with community discussions on her talk page or the Annual Plan
talk page. This suggests an overstretched ED. I would suggest more time on
technology/engineering management and community discussion, and
de-prioritization of site visits until engineering management is
stabilized. In the future, I would also encourage building more time into
ED schedule for reactive measures, such as for more publicly visible
leadership and communications surrounding the Annual Plan process that went
off-track in 2015.

7. I am glad that the "Future of knowledge" film was cut from the budget.
There are many better uses for those funds, such as videos that market
Wikipedia editing to potential editors, or that explain to potential
editors how to add content to Wikipedia.

8. "Messaging platform": in one place the Comms QR says that this was
cancelled, and in another place the QR says that this was postponed. Which
is it, and what is the goal for this platform?

9. Comms appendix E: I would cut "Many happy returns" and "Rallying cry".
The latter is particularly problematic given that we're also fighting for
user privacy. I would amplify "Everyone is a Wikipedian" and "Capture the
entire world's experience of Wikipedia", because I think that those will
resonate. We may also want to add another concept about the value of
Wikipedia for readers; ask "What would the world be like without Wikipedia?"

10. I was impressed with the detailed development of the personas for user
research. Those can be useful for thinking about product development and
testing.

11. I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their
consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively
easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR
process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people
who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is
healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially
welcome.

Regards,

Pine

Pine


On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Anne Gomez <agomez@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising +
> Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.
>
> Thanks,
> Anne
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> > past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
> > slides for those meetings are now available:
> >
> > Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015
> >
> > Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015
> >
> > Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015
> >
> > Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
> > Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015
> >
> > Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> > Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design
> > Research, and Security teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015
> >
> > Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
> > Team Practices:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015
> >
> > As usual, much of this information will also be available in
> > consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
> > which is planned to be published on July 30.
> >
> > --
> > Tilman Bayer
> > Senior Analyst
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Anne Gomez* // Product Manager, Fundraising
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/
>
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate
> <http://donate.wikimedia.org>. *
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
> doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open
> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2)
> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF
> Board may eventually ratify.


I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or
reviewer).

Kirill
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it
imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for office
actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general
moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would
allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that
the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably
more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community
consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If
there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that
govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board
should consider creating one.


Pine


On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
> > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
> > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> open
> > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> (2)
> > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> WMF
> > Board may eventually ratify.
>
>
> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here.
> The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta
> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone
> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or
> reviewer).
>
> Kirill
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.

Sent from my iPhone


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 x6716


> On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it
> imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for office
> actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general
> moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would
> allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that
> the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably
> more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community
> consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If
> there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that
> govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board
> should consider creating one.
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
>>> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
>>> doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
>>> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
>> open
>>> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
>>> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
>>> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
>> (2)
>>> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
>> WMF
>>> Board may eventually ratify.
>>
>>
>> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here.
>> The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta
>> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
>> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone
>> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or
>> reviewer).
>>
>> Kirill
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
As well-intentioned as that policy was, I can't find that there was ever an
authority (the Board or the community) who ratified the policy. It's well
intentioned and it seems to me that it might very well pass an RfC. The
Board or the community might agree to expand it to cover all grants name
spaces, in one form or another. I support the concept of having a friendly
space policy, and it should be implemented the right way. This next quarter
seems like a good time for that to happen.

Pine


On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like
> that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire
> (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for
> processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> James Alexander
> Legal and Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> +1 415-839-6885 x6716
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it
> > imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for
> office
> > actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general
> > moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would
> > allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me
> that
> > the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably
> > more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after
> community
> > consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If
> > there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that
> > govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board
> > should consider creating one.
> >
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <
> kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
> on
> >>> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
> plan
> >>> doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> >>> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> >> open
> >>> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> >>> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> >>> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> >> (2)
> >>> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> >> WMF
> >>> Board may eventually ratify.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
> here.
> >> The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
> meta
> >> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> >> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
> anyone
> >> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
> commenter or
> >> reviewer).
> >>
> >> Kirill
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
On 19 July 2015 at 15:42, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> 11. I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their
> consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively
> easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR
> process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people
> who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is
> healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially
> welcome.


I can only speak for my own experience, but you may be pleased to hear that
the new quarterly review process has actually made things significantly*
less* stressful for me!

Previously expectations around what should be included were unclear, so
preparing for the review was a week-long affair of compiling all of the
events of the quarter and all plans for next quarter into a single slide
deck, normally of over 50 slides.

In contrast, the new process is simple and straightforward. The
standardisation of the template lets everyone know what to expect, and
makes the slide decks significantly more useful to those that didn't
participate directly in the review.

Terry and his team deserve immense praise for how they've evolved this
process to be lightweight and useful. Thank you!

Dan

--
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.

I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it
seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community
department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.

On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users".
I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good
if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event
where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.

Cheers,
Craig





On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
> > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
> > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> open
> > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> (2)
> > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> WMF
> > Board may eventually ratify.
>
>
> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here.
> The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta
> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone
> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or
> reviewer).
>
> Kirill
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF
staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the
Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki
that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation,
and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta.
Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led,
then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see
more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to
have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that
committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had
with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy
is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy
goes through an RfC.

Thanks,
Pine
On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
> hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
> community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
> foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
> community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
> years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
>
> I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback
> that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to
> have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it
> seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
> doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or
> addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
> place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning
> a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community
> department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against
> offwiki harassment, starting from here.
>
> On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
> their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> users".
> I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations
> if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good
> if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event
> where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
> might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
> on
> > > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
> plan
> > > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> > open
> > > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> > > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> > (2)
> > > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> > WMF
> > > Board may eventually ratify.
> >
> >
> > I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
> here.
> > The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
> meta
> > are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> > requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
> anyone
> > participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter
> or
> > reviewer).
> >
> > Kirill
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Pine,
As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge
turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly
space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I
cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added
value is of your insistence.

When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what
are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF
> staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the
> Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki
> that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation,
> and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta.
> Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led,
> then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see
> more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to
> have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that
> committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had
> with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy
> is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy
> goes through an RfC.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
> On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit
> one
> > hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
> > community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
> > foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
> > community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
> > years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
> >
> > I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
> feedback
> > that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem
> to
> > have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it
> > seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
> > doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility,
> or
> > addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
> > place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
> upturning
> > a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community
> > department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
> against
> > offwiki harassment, starting from here.
> >
> > On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
> > their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> > users".
> > I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
> expectations
> > if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be
> good
> > if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event
> > where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
> > might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
> > on
> > > > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
> > plan
> > > > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > > > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through
> an
> > > open
> > > > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > > > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform
> further
> > > > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta,
> and
> > > (2)
> > > > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that
> the
> > > WMF
> > > > Board may eventually ratify.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
> > here.
> > > The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
> > meta
> > > are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> > > requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
> > anyone
> > > participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
> commenter
> > or
> > > reviewer).
> > >
> > > Kirill
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Hi Gerard,

The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally
willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen
freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a
friendly space policy.

If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for
saying that a document that governs community behavior is actually a
policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval
process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies
for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and
consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content
and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are
especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think
that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can
make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers
should be the Board and/or the community.

There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be
great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and
make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a
final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is
enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the
community.

Pine
On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Pine,
> As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge
> turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly
> space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I
> cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added
> value is of your insistence.
>
> When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what
> are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF
> > staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the
> > Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki
> > that is governed by community leadership and community content
> moderation,
> > and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta.
> > Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led,
> > then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to
> see
> > more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF
> to
> > have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on
> that
> > committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had
> > with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space
> policy
> > is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy
> > goes through an RfC.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pine
> > On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit
> > one
> > > hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
> > > community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
> > > foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
> > > community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple
> of
> > > years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short
> term.
> > >
> > > I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
> > feedback
> > > that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem
> > to
> > > have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement,
> it
> > > seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like
> you're
> > > doing something about a problem, without actually taking
> responsibility,
> > or
> > > addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
> > > place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
> > upturning
> > > a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community
> > > department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
> > against
> > > offwiki harassment, starting from here.
> > >
> > > On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will
> share
> > > their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> > > users".
> > > I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
> > expectations
> > > if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be
> > good
> > > if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an
> event
> > > where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic
> individuals
> > > might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants
> spaces
> > > on
> > > > > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the
> rollout
> > > plan
> > > > > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > > > > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through
> > an
> > > > open
> > > > > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision
> is
> > > > > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform
> > further
> > > > > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta,
> > and
> > > > (2)
> > > > > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that
> > the
> > > > WMF
> > > > > Board may eventually ratify.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
> > > here.
> > > > The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages
> on
> > > meta
> > > > are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> > > > requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
> > > anyone
> > > > participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
> > commenter
> > > or
> > > > reviewer).
> > > >
> > > > Kirill
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
> users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events
> beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the
> list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access
> to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among
> the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even
> if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a
> basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary.
> This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia,
> both physical and virtual.
>

Quite right - you haven't received it... because it was just finished
before Wikimania. Give us a bit of time to breathe, please. :-) It will
be circulated as necessary - meaning, we will likely not be providing the
list of names, except to event organizers. I believe the current intent is
to share the protocol with those who are interested, but I'm honestly not
sure of this - while it was developed on my team, I honestly didn't have
day to day involvement with it, so I need to refresh my memory. :-)

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki
<https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Hi Pine,

Thanks for your questions regarding the Communications QR slides. Answers
in-line below.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> I appreciate the combined QRs. Questions and comments:
>
> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on
> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan
> doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an open
> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and (2)
> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the WMF
> Board may eventually ratify.
>
> 2. CA says that there are "...a (legal-approved) list of... event banned
> users", "a protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> users" and that it will "Supply to Conference Coordinators for events
> beginning in Q1 (6/30)." Here at Cascadia Wikimedians, I didn't receive the
> list or the protocol. I'm not sure that we need the list, but having access
> to the protocol would be helpful, and I suggest that it be circulated among
> the leaders of affiliate organizations which have in-person meetings even
> if they are not "conferences", since we may want to use WMF's protocol as a
> basis for developing our own, keeping in mind that local laws may vary.
> This aligns with the general goal of having friendly spaces in Wikimedia,
> both physical and virtual.
>
> 3. What are the goals for the CA meeting with Stewards?
>
> 4. For F&A, I propose that next year there is an additional measure of
> success for the Annual Plan that goes something like this: "Complete annual
> plan draft with all supporting documents such as budget tables and job
> descriptions will be published for community review by April 15. Community
> review and discussion period will happen through May 15, with staff
> responding to each question within one week of the question being asked.
> Annual Plan revisions, taking community feedback into account, are
> completed by June 1 for Board to review during the full month of June. At
> least one Board meeting during which the Annual Plan is reviewed will be
> open to the community through remote video participation."
>
> 5. A couple of teams in a few departments seem to have spent significant
> time on simply developing their goals for the next year. The amount of time
> being used on planning seems excessive in some cases. I would suggest
> developing standardized processes for goal development, perhaps with the
> assistance of Team Practices, Learning & Evaluation, and/or Human
> Resources.
>
> 6. A Communications Department goal was to "Advance Wikimedia movement
> goals through Executive Director visits and speeches". I feel the need to
> ask if it's necessary for the WMF ED to travel so much when neither senior
> position in WMF technology and engineering is filled, and the ED isn't
> keeping up with community discussions on her talk page or the Annual Plan
> talk page. This suggests an overstretched ED. I would suggest more time on
> technology/engineering management and community discussion, and
> de-prioritization of site visits until engineering management is
> stabilized. In the future, I would also encourage building more time into
> ED schedule for reactive measures, such as for more publicly visible
> leadership and communications surrounding the Annual Plan process that went
> off-track in 2015.
>
> 7. I am glad that the "Future of knowledge" film was cut from the budget.
> There are many better uses for those funds, such as videos that market
> Wikipedia editing to potential editors, or that explain to potential
> editors how to add content to Wikipedia.
>

We agree that this wasn't the right year to move forward with this concept,
which is why we cancelled it following further exploration. Along the lines
of what you suggest, we have plans to develop videos this year that support
engagement and outreach. The specifics of these videos are under
development now, but one of the first will address new editing features in
Visual Editor.

>
> 8. "Messaging platform": in one place the Comms QR says that this was
> cancelled, and in another place the QR says that this was postponed. Which
> is it, and what is the goal for this platform?
>

This was postponed. A message platform is a jargon term for a outline of
your objectives, rendered in clear, compelling language for a particular
audience(s). A very simple example would be answering the questions: What
do we do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? Why does it matter? While our
shared movement vision is clear, different audiences may respond to
different explanations -- for example, a university considering an
education partnership will be interested in different things than a
conference audience of open source developers. The goal of a message
platform is to help a listener or reader easily grasp key points by by
improving clarity and consistency in written or spoken communications. As
we embark on the emergent strategy, a messaging platform can support
clarity regarding proposed actions and desired outcomes.

>
> 9. Comms appendix E: I would cut "Many happy returns" and "Rallying cry".
> The latter is particularly problematic given that we're also fighting for
> user privacy. I would amplify "Everyone is a Wikipedian" and "Capture the
> entire world's experience of Wikipedia", because I think that those will
> resonate. We may also want to add another concept about the value of
> Wikipedia for readers; ask "What would the world be like without
> Wikipedia?"
>

I should clarify that these concepts were developed by Wikimedia
stakeholders in a workshop about messaging about Wikipedia for a broader
audience, and are meant to be representative of ongoing work, not final
concepts. We ran two versions of the same workshop last week at Wikimania,
and are exploring ways to hold similar exercises online so that more
community members can participate. We agree in the importance of testing
ideas to see what resonates.

>
> 10. I was impressed with the detailed development of the personas for user
> research. Those can be useful for thinking about product development and
> testing.
>
> 11. I like the overall QR format, the notes on Meta, and their
> consolidation in to the format presented here. This makes it relatively
> easy to understand what's happening inside of WMF. The evolution of the QR
> process is very nice to see. I know that this causes some stress for people
> who are presenting their projects, but overall I think the organization is
> healthier for having these reviews, and the transparency is especially
> welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Anne Gomez <agomez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello all - just a small correction. Advancement is actually Fundraising
> +
> > Partnerships, which presented alongside Fundraising Tech.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anne
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> > > past quarter (April-June 2015) took place last week. Minutes and
> > > slides for those meetings are now available:
> > >
> > > Community Engagement, Advancement (Fundraising and Fundraising Tech):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/CE_and_Advancement,_July_2015
> > >
> > > Discovery (formerly "Search & Discovery"):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_July_2015
> > >
> > > Reading (formerly mobile web and apps):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading,_July_2015
> > >
> > > Editing (comprising the Collaboration/Flow, Language Engineering,
> > > Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_July_2015
> > >
> > > Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> > > Services, TechOps, Labs, Performance, Research & Data, Design
> > > Research, and Security teams):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure,_July_2015
> > >
> > > Legal, Finance & Administration, Human Resources, Communications and
> > > Team Practices:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_July_2015
> > >
> > > As usual, much of this information will also be available in
> > > consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q4,
> > > which is planned to be published on July 30.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tilman Bayer
> > > Senior Analyst
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Anne Gomez* // Product Manager, Fundraising
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> >
> >
> > *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate
> > <http://donate.wikimedia.org>. *
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Katherine Maher
Chief Communications Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher@wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Thanks Katherine!

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for April-June 2015 [ In reply to ]
Craig,

You are right that the harassment issue needs more than gestures or
unenforceable guidelines, and Community Engagement is working with
community members on new ideas and approaches. The Friendly Spaces
expectations are a beginning, not an end point; they are a first step to
get the community talking about ways to change the status quo. They offer
some structure to build around in developing new social
norms/expectations. But I agree that this must be part of a larger effort
and conversation to have any real positive effect.


On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
> hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
> community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
> foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
> community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
> years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.
>
> I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback
> that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to
> have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it
> seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
> doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or
> addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
> place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning
> a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community
> department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against
> offwiki harassment, starting from here.
>
> On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
> their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned
> users".
> I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations
> if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good
> if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event
> where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
> might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
> on
> > > Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
> plan
> > > doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to
> > > implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> > open
> > > and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
> > > ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
> > > discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> > (2)
> > > a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> > WMF
> > > Board may eventually ratify.
> >
> >
> > I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
> here.
> > The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
> meta
> > are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose
> > requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
> anyone
> > participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter
> or
> > reviewer).
> >
> > Kirill
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Patrick Earley
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
pearley@wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>