_*New elements*_
1. The online meetings planned last week-end to discuss how to move
forward with regards to the survey were successfully held.
Essie (WMF staff in charge of collecting the survey) attended the first
part of the meeting to answer questions participants could have
Second part of the meeting was "without WMF staff". Long discussions etc.
Main point is that a team (Andrew Lih, Phoebe an Richard) *proposed to
write a Letter to the Board*. A draft was produced and will be made
public tomorrow (I will share the link, it is currently still private,
but Sj and I have access to current version).
*Essentially this Letter asks for a "pause" in the process to allow
further discussions.* Keep in mind that when the meeting was held, the
deadline to answer the survey was June 30th
This letter will be proposed tomorrow for signature for Affiliates.
<------ will have to be discussed from tomorrow on after link publicly
published.
2. In the meanwhile, *the board issued a statement*. That you can read
here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Boar…
Summary and key points
- it was published by Nataliia, and though a "board statement", mostly
read in the "I'. Apparently due to the urgency of the situation and not
all board members being available over the week-end.
- outline that, contrariwise to what Heather said in the exec statement,
the final decision has not been made yet. Likely to be made in August
2020 during the next board meeting
- and note that no decision has been made regarding the naming of the
affiliates
- Natalia mentions the future Wikipedia 20th Anniversary and the former
wish of the Board to get everything fixed before that date (which
actually came a bit oddly in the discussion because very few community
members discussed that in relation to the rebranding process)
3. This morning, Samir sent us an email and said t*he deadline to answer
the survey is extended till July 7th*. He also says
There are 3 office hours this weekwhere the Brand Project Team will
continue to answer questions. All links available here in the news
section :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
If you are interested in joining and asking questions, this is the right
time to do it. If you are short of time and/or already made it your time
---> drop
4. *There is a community feedback and straw poll* here *In light of
recent events, including the publication of survey text and naming
proposals, it may benefit the WMF to see how the community feels about
certain naming-related issues, transparently and on-wiki. Therefore, the
poll. This is an informal poll, and does not replace theWMF survey. At
least, the results of this one are publicly visible ;)*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
-----------
_*My personal take on this is*_ * that the board already decided a LONG
time ago to rename Wikimedia Foundation into Wikipedia something; and
that they will do that, no matter what. * that the two
communication/brand companies were only hired to facilitate the process,
and take the heat, being blamed for failing to provide good suggestions
or supposingly pushing the board to adopt a new name. Whatever, they are
just the safety valve. They will not take all the heat, but part of it
making the pill easier to go down the throat of the community * that the
process is being "pushed" with a feeling of urgency, which surprises
many because usually we benefit from longer timeframe and covid19
oblige, everything is slowed. But the truth is... the main benefit of
the renaming is likely to be financial, with an easier and better way to
fundraise. With the current crisis, it is likely the future fundraising
season will be bad. Fundraising season start around September. So the
name change should benefit to be done before this year fundraising
season. Additionnaly, the Wikipedia 20th birthday could be an excellent
communication opportunity to promote the new name of the WMF. Hence the
urgency and the unlikeliness that the process significantly slows down *
in comparison, the renaming (or not) of affiliates is perceived as non
urgent and non essential, which is quite logical in the WMF perspective.
So it is possible to cut some slack here to cool down spirits * Natalia
is possibly being the other sacrificed piece in the process.
----------
_*Your suggested todo list*_
1) Quickly read this page :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
2) read the executive statement if you have not done so. Always
interesting:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
3) read the board statement. Always interesting.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Boar…
4) reflect on the implications of the WMF rename on your own activities
and structure
5) decide whether you will answer the *individual survey* (before July
07th) :
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
6) decide whether you want to take the *community poll *:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
7) tomorrow, read the open letter when I sent the link, and tell Sj and
I whether you think the Offline UG should sign it or not
8) tell Sj and I if you have a strong opinion on what we should answer
in the *Affiliate Survey*
Flo
Le 21/06/2020 à 19:40, Florence Devouard a écrit :
It is a fair question Emmanuel
Well, what you say is true. In short, if I summarize super briefly
1) According to Heather, the brand redefinition was a request from the
board back in 2015. But there is no mention in board meeting minutes
and two former board members do not remember this decision. Note: this
was in Lila time.
However, it seems indeed that the board confirmed its non-opposition
to the communication team to work on that topic in 2018:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
Note that this does not appear to be a request from the board to the
staff, but rather a request from the staff to be allowed to explore.
2) Brand awareness survey done in 7 countries in 2017 showed poor
visibility and understanding of the wikimedia brand
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Br…
2) When a survey was done a bit later, the statistical results were
displayed in such a way that the case was made from the brand team
that there was very little opposition from the community
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications%2FWikimedia_bra…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_…
Evidence was made that the statistical presentation was broken and
misleading.
Arguments from opponents to the change include the fact the board
members might have been mislead in believing there was no opposition
from the community, and thus approved a rebranding without correct
context.
3) Following that situation, a RFC was launched by the community, and
show an overwelming opposition to replace Wikimedia with Wikipedia in
our orgs and projects name.
Note that RFC is opt-in only, so might over represent those who oppose
the rebranding. Hence the case made for the final survey to poll
community members about their position on the matter.
Those who want to further explore:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_…
4) The Brand team continued its work. Extensive discussions followed,
with face to face brainstorming events to try to identify "good
ideas". And key argument to opponants was that it was still in
discussion phase etc.
Brand network was created to better inform etc., give arguments in
favor of the change etc. (I joined it as representant of offline UG to
keep track of what was going on)
There was further information provided about a month ago during a
public meeting, revealing a collection of "words/directions"
There were repeated requests from the people following this topic, for
the final survey to include the "no change please" option. But this
has been dismissed repeatedly.
5) Then finally a new survey (the one I mentionned earlier) was
proposed a few days ago with a short list of options. The "no option"
is not proposed, and the three options include replacing wikimedia by
wikipedia.
This is creating social unrest. Best person to know more about that is
Andrew Lih.
6) An executive statement was published 2 days ago, stating that a)
this rebranding was done per board request, and 2) the rename will happen
Quote: *"We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has
already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek
consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and
what the path to get there will be."*
To read full statement :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
7) There is a boiling discussion on whether to set up a central banner
to invite participants to respond the survey, with community
opposition to set up the banner.
I have actually been contacted by some staff about this, who were
apparently trying to evaluate the level of risk of WMF staff to be
unsysoped if they decided the get over the community and activate the
banner anyway
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Movement_Brand_naming…
I am not sure the banner is live yet. At least, I see no banner
myself. It should have gone live on the 16th
8) Thus followed much discussion after the executive statement, on
telegram and on meta.
Probably central place is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_m…
APPARENTLY, a statement from the board is expected. Unless wrong, it
has not been published yet.
9) There is a meeting TONIGHT (21h UTC+2), community organized, on the
matter.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting
I'll attend and will try to summarize