The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
* Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
* Endorsements and chance to ask questions
* Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
--
Robert
http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/
Sean and Dmcdevit,
Two basic questions for you:
1): We have a problem with lack of ops right now. This is known and
being worked on. I know Freenode discourages leaving auto-op on, but
given the amount of vandalism that #wikipedia gets compared to other
channels, (for instance, on my other network, the 4 or 5 50-60 person
channels I co-own get spammed maybe once or twice every month), why
don't we just leave auto-ops on? It will prevent questions of "Where
are the ops", discourage spamming, and give the channel users a
little more peace of mind that ops are actually there. I've never
agreed with the "no auto-ops"philosophy: I know it's supposed to
prevent it from becoming a status symbol, but people were still
saying "give me ops!" before the rules change anyway, and personally
I think people consider on-project admin status a bigger "status
symbol". Summary: Why don't we just turn auto-op on?
2): There's obviously a LOT of criticism for these changes. Yes they
were posted in topic. It's noted that for a lot of people, they don't
check the topic. Or in my case, their client doesn't display the
topic or chanserv messages. Since there are a lot of people
dissatisfied with the change, have you considered backpedalling (even
more than the relaxation of the off topic rules)? Or if you're not
considering a complete reversal, some greater steps?
Possibly.....turning auto-op on ;) ?
-Dan Rosenthal
On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:46 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
> So, the idea of removing ops was primarily to create the opportunity
> for ratification of the guidelines. It was realised that the last
> attempt at guidelines had failed because those who were to enforce
> them were confused: if we had created a peaceful channel with them and
> then an inactive op came back and shattered things (in good faith and
> unintentionally) it would have been all for naught. By asking ops to
> reapply we can reaffirm we're all on the same wavelength.
OK, so this is my first attempt at using a mailing list. I figured I would
probably give that up by misusing it somehow anyway, so I supposed I'd get
that out in the open, at least.
Dmcdevit wrote:
> Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
> > We think of off topic
> > conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
> > silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour
> > later, when you lost all the interest
> Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the
> question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated.
As may or may not have yet been mentioned on the mailing list, the last
couple of days has seen an influx of spammers in the newly opfree
#wikipedia. I'm sure that over time, as more ops are promoted, this problem
will subside, but for the moment, only intervention from outside the channel
has been effective in curbing the flow, since the remaining ops in
#wikipedia are rarely around to monitor the channel.
Since, until about three minutes ago, I had no idea of how to use a mailing
list, I tried contacting Dmcdevit with my query via IRC, instead. It did not
go as well as could be hoped:
[06:34] <vaguerant> I'd respond to this on the mailing list, but like a lot
of people, I don't know a thing about mailing lists, so you know.
[06:34] <vaguerant> "Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry
fandom drown out the
[06:34] <vaguerant> question is worse than that. I think your concern is
exaggerated."
[06:35] <vaguerant> I'm curious as to where people spamming the channel
unrelentingly for half an hour stands in your scale of badness.
[06:35] <Dmcdevit> If you are going to start this again I'm just going to
have to put you on ignore.
[06:36] <vaguerant> Start what again?
[06:36] <vaguerant> I've never even spoken to you about this.
[06:37] <Dmcdevit> You might be surprised to know that I don't approve of
spamming. And it's hard to see that as an innocent question.
[06:37] <vaguerant> Of course, but what was worse?
[06:37] <vaguerant> People talking about US politics, or people spamming?
[06:41] <vaguerant> Not meaning to prod, but have you ignored me, or are you
thinking?
I'm still unsure as to whether I was being ignored in the conventional
sense or ignored in the IRC sense, but as
of 7:15, I'm still yet to receive any further response. Regardless, I
pose the same question here. Of US
politics, furry fandom (which, in my three-some years of visiting
#wikipedia, has rarely come up), and wholesale spamming and trolling of the
channel for up to thirty minutes, which is the worst? Was the decision to
clear #wikipedia's access list truly a wise one, given its indirect results?
One might make an argument as to hindsight, but surely increased misbehavior
should have been predicted when the prospect of removing the previous ops'
privileges came up. Is this lack of thought expected to be typical of the
new administration of #wikipedia?
~ Vague
Dmcdevit wrote:
> And here follows more of the vague accusations and innuendo (this time,
> oddly, that I prefer trolling to off-topic chat) which has gotten you
> banned from #wikipedia already, and for which you seem to show no
> comprehension as to why I would get fed up and begin ignoring it after
> hours of it.
I write to assure you that I neither accused or implied that you preferred
trolling; and would be much obliged if you'd be willing to assume good faith
for just a
moment. I was merely hoping (and indeed, still am hoping) for an
admission that clearing the access list was the wrong move.
As I understand it, it was not you who performed this, however
your statement as to the former state of #wikipedia led me to believe
that you felt the current state was preferable,
indicating a tacit support for what was done. I also wish to disabuse you of
the notion that I have been banned from #wikipedia. I am free to come and go
from that channel, however seanw has silenced me for my attempts to politely
discuss the implementation of the new guidelines. While I, personally do not
keep logs of the IRC channels, I'm sure someone will be able to confirm this
if you truly wish it.
Additionally, I fear you may have some personal issue with me. "I would
welcome reasoned criticism, just not yours." Is this to say that reasoned or
otherwise, my criticism will always go ignored by you? This, to me, seems an
improper attitude to have taken on. Even if you do feel my criticisms thus
far have been frivolous, to say that you will ignore any further criticism
is surely not going to help me, you, #wikipedia, or anyone else.
Unfortunately, this seems to have been the attitude taken by several of
those now policing #wikipedia, and not just against myself, but against any
dissenters. It seems odd to me that anyone associated with Wikipedia should
adopt a stance of ignoring criticism, since criticism is a large part of
improvement in any environment. I hope you and others will see fit to change
your mind on this point.
~ Vague
I'm posting it on behalf of Election Committee. -- Schiste
Hi Wikimedians,
As you may know, we are currently holding the Board of Trustees
elections. We are very grateful to your collaborations for sharing the
info, through translations, forwarding and other several ways.
Last Sunday, June 17, the Board Election has entered its second phase:
call for endorsements from the community to the candidates. Only
candidates who get 12 or more endorsements in the following week will
be able to run in the election.
For further information, please see m:Board
elections/2007/Endorsements. (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements )
We would appreciate your translation of this message as well as other
Election related information. If you'd like to offer further help,
just contact your language coordinator and regularly check the list of
candidate statements.
If there's no coordinator for your language, please consider joining
our translations team. Please contact User:Schiste or User:Aphaia on
meta if you have any question.
Cheers, Wikimedia Election Steering Committee
Usefull links:
* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees The page about
the Board of Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation website.
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007 Board of
Trustees elections 2007
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Translations#Coordinato…
Translations Coordinators
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidates
Candidates Statements
--
schiste
This a quantum leap from the nonsense that professionals are not welcome to edit or willing to edit. The downside, is that, though theoretically familiar with the literature in their field, an expert may engage in the game we all engage in from time to time, "I know this, why do I need a reference"?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GerardM [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:27 PM
>To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Cc: 'Hannah Morales'
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
>
>Hoi,
>I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most
>excellent bit of news.
>
>The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the
>field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding
>drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in
>a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to
>learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.
>
>What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are
>asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more
>linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be
>interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more
>relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get
>more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that
>we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with
>all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the
>Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should
>approve yet another language :)
>
>NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in
>this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...
>
>Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>
>Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM
>Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
>To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org
>
>LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.
>
>Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
>
>Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org>
> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>
>
>Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project
> <reviews(a)linguistlist.org>
>
>Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/
>
>The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,
>and donations from subscribers and publishers.
>
>Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>
>================================================================
>
>To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
>http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html
>===========================Directory==============================
>
>1)
>Date: 18-Jun-2007
>From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
>Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35
>From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
>Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
>
>
>Dear subscribers,
>
>As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the
>"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their
>donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the
>English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this
>at:
>
>http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.
>
>The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity
>of
>our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic
>about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit
>more
>leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on
>the
>Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely
>organizational one. We will:
>
>*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or
>pages that need improvement;
>*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified
>as
>"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any
>references or sources," etc;
>*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or
>articles;
>*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;
>*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;
>*Keep track of revisions and new entries;
>*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's
>efforts.
>
>We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us
>all
>get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an
>area
>needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of
>Linguists
>page at:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M
>
>Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and
>information
>added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,
>please
>respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at
>hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which
>linguistics
>entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our
>campaign
>on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we
>will
>share with you soon.
>
>This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The
>end
>result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth
>and
>depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate
>prospective
>students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on
>what
>we do. Please consider participating.
>
>Sincerely,
>Hannah Morales
>Editor, Wikipedia Update Project
>
>
>Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Dear all,
In the next few weeks, we will be holding the 4th elections to the board
of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation, to replace 3 board members.
Since the creation of the Foundation in 2003, and its first elections in
june 2004, a lot of things have changed with regards to board membership.
Jimbo created the Foundation in 2003 with the help of two business
partners. He could have set up an organization in which no community
members would have been involved and where he would have kept for
himself this role of benevolent dictator for the rest of his life. But
this is not what he did. He voluntarily decided to involve the community
in reserving two seats for members to be elected from within the community.
I remember criticisms at that time, some editors saying that the board
was stacked, that the two business partners would only do what Jimbo
would tell them to do, and that we should have a majority of people from
the community.
Looking back in the past, I find these comments a bit amusing, and I am
glad Jimbo made the decision he made. He acted prudently and I think he
was right to do so. His two business partners, Tim and Michael, were
deeply commited to our values and I have no memory of them suggesting
anything that would have lead us on a dangerous path. Contrariwise to
what the critics said, they were (are) pretty independantly minded and
did not hesitate opposing Jimbo when they felt it was needed. Tim left
us when he felt we were on the right path and it was time for someone
else to replace him. Michael is pretty much thinking the same, and will
be willing to be replaced as soon as he is sure we have someone with
good accounting skills/financial background to replace him as treasurer.
Last year, we updated the bylaws, to have them better reflect what we
really are, what we want to be. Jimbo, member for life till the creation
of the Foundation, is now a regular (well, special person, but regular
member), with limited term. Jimbo actually wanted to candidate for a
elected seat this month, but we suggested it was a bad idea since the
turnover is already pretty high. The big lesson though, is that we are
now all equals.
Last fall, Tim, Michael, Jimbo, Erik and I, decided to change several
parameters on the board membership, clarifying the length of terms, the
appointed versus elected, the expansion of the board, giving more room
for community representative, but also clarifying how we would appoint
people.
All these changes led to, I hope, a more functional board, and probably
a happier board.
With more seats to elect, we also have more room for diversity of skills
and for diversity of countries and languages.
Whilst we first elect people, please keep in mind skills as well. The
ideal Board has a mix of different skills: it is composed of big picture
thinkers and leaders, non-profit veterans with accounting or legal
experience, fundraising experts, and public figures. It is culturally
diverse, mirroring the diversity found in WMF's project communities. It
takes the corporate governance of WMF seriously while inspiring staff to
strive for ambitious, but realistic long term goals.
----------
Thank you for our official election committee members
* Kizu Naoko (Aphaia)
* Benjamin Mako Hill
* Newyorkbrad
* Philippe Beaudette
* Jon Harald Søby
* Tim Starling
for the hard work they will provide.
As a reminder, to ensure independancy, we try to avoid as much as
possible, communication on election issues between the board and the
commitee. Their contact on the board is Jan-Bart (non elected member).
Our only involvement as I can remember it was to give our opinion on the
voting system (opinion) and on the length of the statement allowed to
candidates. The committee will not tell us any results before the end of
the elections. The board as a whole will not give recommandations (but
individual members are free of course to support or oppose specific
candidates).
----------
During the last board meeting, the board discussed the future elections.
Here is what was agreed:
AGREED: Public statement to be made about what the expectations are of
Board members
AGREED: Election 07 still going to use approval voting
AGREED: Resolution on election committee powers & responsibilitites to
be drafted by Jan-Bart de Vreede
AGREED: Workgroup to research election methods to be set up before the
end of 2007
You may find the public statement about the role of board members here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_board_%28June_2007%29
A later discussion regarding the resolution about the election committee
showed undecision, so no resolution was drafted. But in case anyone
tries to somehow imply that the election committee is not approved, that
would be incorrect. Official committee is made of the 6 people listed
above, and these guys have the power to make the elections happen :-)
Last, please note the suggestion of a workgroup creation to research
election methods for next time. If you are interested in joining such a
group, or even better to steer this group, please speak up !
----------
A short reminder for I am sure not everyone remember this
* Michael, Jimbo are on board since 2003
* I am on the board since june 2004, as elected, till june 2007
* Erik, Kat and Oscar (elected) are on board since fall 2006, till june 2007
* Jan-Bart (appointed) is on board since december 2006
* The board is made of 7 people (with the expectation to go to 9 later)
* Jimbo, Michael and Jan-Bart terms end up in december 2007
* my term end up in june 2007 (as appointed)
* within the board, positions or chair, treasurer and secretary are for
a term of one year. Next renewal in october 2007
The current elections are for a term of 2 years, for three people.
The next elections will be for a term of 2 years, for three people in
june 2007
---------
Let me finish in wishing good luck to anyone. There are currently 10
candidates
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidates/en) and
I hope we'll see even more. Boldly, there are not enough women, and too
many americans/europeans.
Please use the next two weeks as an opportunity to discuss what you
think would be best for the future of the Foundation on all the talk pages.
I would love it if you selected a candidate not only on his/her good
looks or good standing within the community, but also because you think
s/he has the right mix of skills (most necessary right now, legal,
accounting, fundraising, knowledge of non profit world). Also if you
could choose people who conveys opinions which are fitting with yours. A
right mix of energetic people (to make things move forward) and of more
lymphatic people (to avoid they move forward too quickly and unwisely).
And please choose someone who will be a pleasant fellow for other board
members and staff to work with.
I would like to also ask those who are interested in the job, but do not
dare candidating because they believe they will never be able to win
against Erik or Kat, to candidate nevertheless. Elections are a useful
moment in that we have the opportunity to discuss together the future of
the Foundation, for the strength of the democracy, we need candidates
and provocative thinking (thanks Kate :-))
The board can also identify people to possibly appoint, who we did not
imagine would be interested in the job, and we can at least have an idea
of the amount of support appointing them would have within the community.
I guess that's it :-)
ant
European contest of scientific photographies
The MILSET-Europe organise a contest. Participating photographers must
be aged under 25 years. All digital entries must be posted on MILSET
Europe ESPC’s Web site between the 1st February and the 1st July 2007.
Concours européen de photos scientifiques
Le MILSET-Europe organise un concours européens de photos scientifiques
ouvert à tous les jeunes de moins de 25 ans. - Le concours est réservé
aux photographes, amateurs ou professionels, de moins de 25 ans. Toutes
les photographies doivent être envoyées sur le site entre le 1er février
et le 1er juillet 2007.
http://espc.milset.org
--
Pierre Beaudouin
Président de Wikimédia France
http://www.wikimedia.fr
Because it hasn't been mentioned by anybody yet, I wanted to point
out that #wikipedia-en-help (formerly #wikipedia-bootcamp) is the
perfect channel for new Wikipedians who need help (hence the name).
While this channel does, for some reason, seem to be forgotten by the
mainstream Wikipedia IRC community (which may or may not be a bad
thing), it is extremely well-advertised on the Help desk, on the New
Contributors' Help Page, and on {{helpme}} messages. It is also
served by Bjelleklang's Java IRC client on the toolserver (again very
well-advertised in the pages quoted above).
Users in the channel are on the most part very friendly towards
newbies, and even basic questions are bound to get responses from one
or more helpers within seconds.
While I do not exactly condone the idea of compartmentalizing IRC
channels for particular purposes (especially with channels that have
seemingly similar topics, like #wikipedia, #wikipedia-social, and
#wikimedia-social), #wikipedia-en-help *is* a safe haven for newbies
where they can get help without getting ignored (or even worse, being
told that they are in The Wrong Channel) by the masses of seasoned
yet not-newbie-oriented Wikipedians.
So if you do find a newbie in need of help, or if there are any
opportunities where you recommend a channel for a newbie in need of
help, please don't forget #wikipedia-en-help.
Cheers,
Tangotango
On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Gurch wrote:
> Yes, we can move to #wikipedia-social or #wikipedia-en as appropriate,
> but Mark is adamant that newcomers should be sent to #wikipedia for
> help. Until now such help has reliably been delievered within
> seconds by
> experienced and knowledgable users. But they're not there to help
> people; they're there to discuss the project (usually the
> English-language edition) and socialize. No help will be
> forthcoming if
> the channel is empty. (Why wouldn't I just idle there? The same
> reason I
> don't idle in #wikimedia-admin or read the English Wikipedia mailing
> list: nothing useful ever happens).