please could you unsubscribe me. thank you esther fiteni
>From: foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
>Reply-To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:00:30 +0000
>
>Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Where we are headed (Samuel Klein)
> 2. Re: Where we are headed (Ray Saintonge)
> 3. Re: Wikimedia main office (Daniel Mayer)
> 4. Re: Where we are headed (Gavin Chait)
> 5. Re: Catalan Wikinews set up (Arbeo M)
> 6. Re: Where we are headed (Jimmy Wales)
> 7. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
> 8. Re: Wikimedia main office (Ray Saintonge)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:50 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605292200340.31303(a)hcs.harvard.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"
>
>
>On Tue, 30 May 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
> >
> > What was meant here ?
>
>I don't know, but experts are volunteers too, something most of the world
>constantly forgets. We need a list of contributors who are experts --
>divided
>into those who contribute in their field of expertise, and those who avoid
>that
>like the plague.
>
>Sj
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:44:48 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447BCDC0.3020903(a)telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Gavin Chait wrote:
>
> >The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
> >office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
> >collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
> >
> >At the moment the founders are involved. They have an idea of what they
> >want and how to achieve that. There are now thousands of regular
> >contributors who are influencing that direction. There are millions of
> >occasional contributors who muddy the edges. How do you ensure
>continuity?
> >
>This is a question with profound implications. Accomodating these
>segments of our society without losing focus is no trivial problem.
>
> >One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
> >student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town. Every year
>hundreds
> >of students volunteer and contribute to different projects. Each project
>is
> >run by older students. Continuity is difficult where students graduate
>and
> >leave each year. Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
> >know how to run them fail to come back.
> >
>Students enrolled in a programme of finite duration are more likely to
>make provision for their successors. If a project vanishes when they
>leave maybe it has outlived its value. Our senior people are here for
>an indefinite period, and may find it more difficult to envision their
>project mortality.
>
> >The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
> >make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep
>track
> >of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall
>emphasis
> >of the organisation remains focused. The professionals ensure
>consistency
> >while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new
>directions
> >and lots of enthusiasm.
> >
> >It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
> >
> >Offices are far less important than continuity. And the more you rely on
> >volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of
>professionals -
> >where-ever they may be.
> >
>Your conclusion is well taken. But before this can happen there needs
>to be a fundamental understanding about the role of the professional and
>the role of the volunteer. Larry Sanger was good for Wikipedia at the
>time that he was here, but someone like him would be totally unsuitable
>to the present circumstances. Decisions often _must_ be made without
>waiting around debating like the Paris Commune. The questions that then
>arise are What do we want our professional to do? What do we want him
>not to do?
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <20060530050209.7068.qmail(a)web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> > > amateurs. While there may be evident need for some amount of
> > > administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being
>a
> > > professional organization. If you look at staff as an investment you
> > > are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> > > nature.
> >
> > But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> > work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> > offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> > more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> > what it does best.
>
>Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
>(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example, am
>an amateur when it
>comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it. And
>yet I'm the CFO. Which
>may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
>
>I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
>require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
>have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
>what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
>this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
>
>That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
>finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
>
>The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
>
>-- mav
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:46:26 +0200
>From: "Gavin Chait" <gchait(a)gmx.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <003e01c683c0$1ccaa580$7a7219c4@nowdomore>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>Continuity is less about individuals than it is about systems and the
>organisation of information.
>
>This means that the system must be defined. Definition does not imply
>limitation. It is important to know how new projects are organised, run
>and
>scrutinised without declaring what they should be. How far one goes with
>the hierarchy is also important. Are different language versions or large
>sub-projects of a common project different projects? Many "embarrassing"
>moments have come out of English content wikis. How many potential
>pitfalls
>are waiting in other languages? How feasible is it to have language
>experts
>for each of the wikis? Recognising limitations inherent in the system is
>also important - these should be declared.
>
>The professional project manager can still be a volunteer. There are large
>numbers of astonishingly talented people willing to work for free for
>causes
>they believe in. The difference between a volunteer and a "professional"
>is
>not about paid / unpaid it is about the time dedicated to a project and
>their accountability. Some projects are large enough to require full-time
>commitment. Project managers must accept this and be responsible. Not all
>the things that need doing are glamorous.
>
>Project management may not be about content generation alone. It is also
>about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and answerable to
>the
>organisation at large. If something goes wrong, they must sort it out
>immediately and understand and report back on how it happened. They are
>also there to find their own successor.
>
>There must be a project log, and project manual that details exactly how
>things are done (thus ensuring a consistent approach). Clearly the manual
>can evolve but it must be the DNA for the project.
>
>A simple project blog or mailing list isn't good enough since the quantity
>of information produced (and the various diversions it follows) makes rapid
>decision making impossible. In reality, each project needs its own
>moderated (and access limited) wiki where the basics are paired down: how
>things are done, daily / weekly / monthly ... tasks, etc. At the moment
>projects may be run by the person who started them or someone one or two
>iterations away. What happens in 50 years?
>
>The organisation itself requires a similar approach with a slightly larger
>set of responsibilities: PR, legal, accounting, admin and an overall
>director. These are the trappings of any formal development organisation.
>Having them doesn't limit the activity of the volunteers, it is simply a
>responsible way of handling information generated by the organisation.
>
>The director also needs feedback and that will come from your board.
>
>Each of the tasks can be defined and each of the roles can be filled. A
>mechanism for recruiting and training new people to fill each task is much
>more straightforward when you know exactly what that task is.
>
>I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows: volunteer works on
>a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become the project leader,
>stays in that for a year and grooms his / her replacement, gets invited to
>join the core team, gets groomed to become director, serves for a set
>period, becomes a board member. Some of these tasks are full-time, some
>are
>not. The person accepting major tasks does so recognising what the
>commitment is and what it will cost them (if the tasks are unpaid).
>
>This is continuity. It doesn't limit the content, projects or creativity
>of
>the organisation. It channels the most capable people through a system
>that
>maintains the integrity of their knowledge while still allowing the
>organisation to evolve and meet future needs.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:35:53 +0200
>From: "Arbeo M" <arbeo.wiki(a)googlemail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Catalan Wikinews set up
>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <e1406ce00605300435o2aff3f82ia2d17204ee8b8cc(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 5/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wikinews has a bit of an unusual process. Individual Wikinews language
>editions have to meet much higher standards than, for example,
>Wikipedias to be launched.
>...
>The procedure for creating a new Wikinews edition is at:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition
>
>Thanks for the info. Didn't know about this special procedure wrt Wikinews.
>
>A.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:22:05 +0200
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447C550D.7050301(a)wikia.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>Anthere wrote:
> > By the way, a citation published on a french site recently (an interview
> > from Jimbo).
> >
> > Jimbo says
> >
> > "... nous souhaitons g?n?rer une version
> > ? stable ? des articles, v?rifi?e et approuv?e par des experts sur le
> > sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit? de le modifier. Il est hors de
> > question de demander aux b?n?voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> > de demander ? un expert de peaufiner le rest."
> >
> > Translation
> >
> > "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> > approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> > modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> > of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> > polishing".
>
>"We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
>approved by the community, using a process which meets or exceeds the
>quality level of traditional encyclopedias. Such a process should
>involve people with expertise, of course, but it would not be acceptable
>for us to take the attitude that "ah, thank you to the volunteers, but
>now we have experts to come in and finish the job". Rather, we seek to
>extend our community process in new ways over time, always remaining
>open to new ideas for higher quality."
>
>--Jimbo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:51:13 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer(a)wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA231.90902(a)telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs. While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization. If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example,
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it.
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff. I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job. While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task. I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations. In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two. This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing. There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee. There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:42:43 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>To: dmayer(a)wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <447CA033.8090709(a)telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 5/29/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What you seem to forget is that Wikipedia's strength rests with its
> >>>amateurs. While there may be evident need for some amount of
> >>>administrative staff it is as important to avoid pretensions of being a
> >>>professional organization. If you look at staff as an investment you
> >>>are assuming an economic model that runs contrary to Wikipedia's free
> >>>nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>But you can also make the case that getting professionals to do the
> >>work that needs to be done (legal, finance, fundraising, etc.)
> >>offloads those tasks so that the "strength of the amateurs" can be
> >>more productively tapped and scaled up to keep Wikipedia evolving in
> >>what it does best.
> >>
> >>
> >Exactly. The amateur model just does not scale well *at all* for the
>Wikimedia Foundation
> >(Wikipedia and the other wikis are a different matter). I, for example,
>am an amateur when it
> >comes to finance. My day job and education have nothing to do with it.
>And yet I'm the CFO. Which
> >may have been fine when Wikipedia was a top 500 website and had a small
>budget, but not now.
> >
> >I'm a quick learner and always have been able to handle widely varied
>responsibilities that
> >require different skill sets (thus my ability, with the help of the
>Wikimedia treasurer who does
> >have the relevant experience and training, to perform in my role), but
>there simply is a limit to
> >what I can do; both from a time perspective (I can only devote an hour or
>two - at most - a day to
> >this) AND, perhaps more importantly, from an experience/education
>perspective.
> >
> >That is why I've had a standing letter of resignation that will go into
>effect once the foundation
> >finally gets around to hiring a properly qualified finance director.
> >
> >The foundation is not a wiki. It needs to grow up.
> >
>I don't dispute the need for the Foundation to have some level of paid
>staff. I also feel some concern about the way you have been hung out to
>dry in the CFO job. While you have no doubt worked at the position to
>the best of your ability, Wikipedians having a little more familiarity
>with such matters probably could see the potential difficulties, and
>avoided volunteering for the task. I really don't think that the Board
>has ever been on top of this portfolio.
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are indeed two different
>concepts, and the relative roles of professionals and amateurs will
>indeed be different in these two organizations. In many respects we
>need to start building a firewall between the two. This would leave the
>WMF responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructural assets, while
>Wikipedia and its sisterprojects could be free to pursue their
>innovative strategies without the need to be guided by a paranoia that
>any small legal oversight could bring the entire empire crashing. There
>are certainly profitable enterprises out there who would welcome that
>development with great glee. There needs to be an arm's length
>relationship between the two, and I don't see much being said to address
>that.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 50
>********************************************
>> Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
>> It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
>> answerable to the organisation at large."
> Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
> Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
> the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
> war in Wikipedia.
Here I can clarify. What a project does is irrelevant in terms of the
system as long as it meets the general objectives of the organisation. The
project manager alone is responsible for what happens there. If a dispute
looks as if it will involve the organisation then it is the duty of the
project manager to bring that to the organisation's attention. If it is
merely an edit war or copyright or local dispute then it is part of their
daily problem and not the Foundation's.
If you think of it in terms of regular charitable foundations: they
research and select projects to fund, projects are championed by outsiders
or are initiated by the foundation, they offer advice and know-how (where
possible), they monitor the activities of their funded projects, and they
dive in if things go wrong (if they choose to). If a project gets caught
doing something illegal (or even just awkward) they can intervene, isolate,
amputate, ... or risk looking foolish.
In Wiki Foundation's case, you have overlap. You are directly involved in
terms of infrastructure, methodology and physical involvement.
Delphine writes: "I believe that *not using* is harder than *not having*"
Creating a firewall between the foundation and its supported projects
implies *not using* and that will be very hard. Legally, what happens if
you host and have the capacity to intervene?
This means you need to structure the Foundation in such a way that you can't
intervene without the approval of a project leader (for instance, you create
/ nominate a head of Wikipedia who has absolute power). Reporting and
accountability become even more important in such a distributed hierarchy.
And that comes back to what I suggested at the beginning. A loose
collection of independent organisations / projects (and forgive me for using
terminology that may not be appropriate) that are accountable to a central
Foundation.
Before you start hiring office space it is essential to know what will be
done there. And before a lot of the ideas presented in this mailing list
get lost, perhaps it is a good idea to create a closed wiki to build the
organisation structure, tasks, methodology, conflict resolution, job
descriptions ... and a constitution.
The Economist states boldly on every contents page: first published in 1843
to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses
forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."
We could do worse than start from there. Once you have everything, then you'll
know where your office should be, how big it needs to be, and what will be
done there.
The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
At the moment the founders are involved. They have an idea of what they
want and how to achieve that. There are now thousands of regular
contributors who are influencing that direction. There are millions of
occasional contributors who muddy the edges. How do you ensure continuity?
One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town. Every year hundreds
of students volunteer and contribute to different projects. Each project is
run by older students. Continuity is difficult where students graduate and
leave each year. Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
know how to run them fail to come back.
The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep track
of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall emphasis
of the organisation remains focused. The professionals ensure consistency
while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new directions
and lots of enthusiasm.
It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
Offices are far less important than continuity. And the more you rely on
volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of professionals -
where-ever they may be.
Just so everyone's up to date, Brion has set up, on my request, the
Catalan edition of Wikinews, which has been in the works for some time
and meets all the conditions (18 editors expressed interest, all
relevant pages were translated).
http://ca.wikinews.org/
Erik
Continuity is less about individuals than it is about systems and the
organisation of information.
This means that the system must be defined. Definition does not imply
limitation. It is important to know how new projects are organised, run and
scrutinised without declaring what they should be. How far one goes with
the hierarchy is also important. Are different language versions or large
sub-projects of a common project different projects? Many "embarrassing"
moments have come out of English content wikis. How many potential pitfalls
are waiting in other languages? How feasible is it to have language experts
for each of the wikis? Recognising limitations inherent in the system is
also important - these should be declared.
The professional project manager can still be a volunteer. There are large
numbers of astonishingly talented people willing to work for free for causes
they believe in. The difference between a volunteer and a "professional" is
not about paid / unpaid it is about the time dedicated to a project and
their accountability. Some projects are large enough to require full-time
commitment. Project managers must accept this and be responsible. Not all
the things that need doing are glamorous.
Project management may not be about content generation alone. It is also
about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and answerable to the
organisation at large. If something goes wrong, they must sort it out
immediately and understand and report back on how it happened. They are
also there to find their own successor.
There must be a project log, and project manual that details exactly how
things are done (thus ensuring a consistent approach). Clearly the manual
can evolve but it must be the DNA for the project.
A simple project blog or mailing list isn't good enough since the quantity
of information produced (and the various diversions it follows) makes rapid
decision making impossible. In reality, each project needs its own
moderated (and access limited) wiki where the basics are paired down: how
things are done, daily / weekly / monthly ... tasks, etc. At the moment
projects may be run by the person who started them or someone one or two
iterations away. What happens in 50 years?
The organisation itself requires a similar approach with a slightly larger
set of responsibilities: PR, legal, accounting, admin and an overall
director. These are the trappings of any formal development organisation.
Having them doesn't limit the activity of the volunteers, it is simply a
responsible way of handling information generated by the organisation.
The director also needs feedback and that will come from your board.
Each of the tasks can be defined and each of the roles can be filled. A
mechanism for recruiting and training new people to fill each task is much
more straightforward when you know exactly what that task is.
I would imagine that a simple flow could be as follows: volunteer works on
a project, gets more involved, gets groomed to become the project leader,
stays in that for a year and grooms his / her replacement, gets invited to
join the core team, gets groomed to become director, serves for a set
period, becomes a board member. Some of these tasks are full-time, some are
not. The person accepting major tasks does so recognising what the
commitment is and what it will cost them (if the tasks are unpaid).
This is continuity. It doesn't limit the content, projects or creativity of
the organisation. It channels the most capable people through a system that
maintains the integrity of their knowledge while still allowing the
organisation to evolve and meet future needs.
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Anthere wrote:
> Jimbo says
>
> "... nous souhaitons g�n�rer une version
> � stable � des articles, v�rifi�e et approuv�e par des experts sur le
> sujet, tout en maintenant la possibilit� de le modifier. Il est hors de
> question de demander aux b�n�voles de faire le plus gros du travail, et
> de demander � un expert de peaufiner le rest."
>
> Translation
>
> "We wish to create a stable version of all articles, checked and
> approved by experts on the topic, whilst keeping the option of
> modification of the article. It is excluded to ask volunteers to do most
> of the bulk work, and to ask to an expert to just take care of the
> polishing".
>
> What was meant here ?
I don't know, but experts are volunteers too, something most of the world
constantly forgets. We need a list of contributors who are experts -- divided
into those who contribute in their field of expertise, and those who avoid that
like the plague.
Sj
Hello, all!
I have been working some on the Activism wiki (activism.wikia.com) on Wikia since it is too POV to be appropriate for Wikimedia.
We could really use some editors who are experienced. Are any of you interested in contributing something? Also, since there is almost no one active on the project now, we'll need some admins very soon.
Even if you are uninterested in helping edit, we'd really appreciate any helpful tips you can give on how the project could develop. Also, if you have suggestions for where else we could look for editors on the project, those would be welcome as well.
If you have interest in the project, take a look at my user page: activism.wikia.com/wiki/User:Nabarry . Leave a hello on my talk.
And thanks for all those who gave advice or guidance when I originally proposed the project.
- Nicholas Barry
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for the good news, that's really great!! :D
Best regards,
H.T. (w:zh:User:Htchien)
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:59 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Delhi visit, sponsorship for CWMC
RedHat invited me to speak at a conference in Delhi, India, at a time which
is just before the CWMC.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CWMC_2006
I asked them, in lieu of me getting any honorarium personally, if they would
agree to pay for my flights to Delhi and Hong Kong, and also to donate $3000
to support the CWMC. They agreed to do so!
KJ is the main organizer of CWMC, and she is communicating the good news to
her community.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
___________________________________________________ 最新版 Yahoo!奇摩即時通訊 7.0，免費網路電話任你打！ http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
RedHat invited me to speak at a conference in Delhi, India, at a time
which is just before the CWMC.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CWMC_2006
I asked them, in lieu of me getting any honorarium personally, if they
would agree to pay for my flights to Delhi and Hong Kong, and also to
donate $3000 to support the CWMC. They agreed to do so!
KJ is the main organizer of CWMC, and she is communicating the good news
to her community.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
Don't you think it's kinda neat that Wikimedia is changing the world from
somewhere rather random?
I mean, we're all editing in random places in random countries around the
world. And an edit from El Cerrito, California or Randberg, South Africa is
just as valued on Wikipedia, as one from Washington, is it not?
So if we assign no value to the location of a contributor, why should we
assign value to the location of our founder?
Nick/Zanimum