Expert board members - a suggestion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
84 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Brian J Mingus
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > The WMF as a membership organisation would be great, but I don't
>> think
>> >> > it is practical. A better option (which I have discussed with a few
>> >> > poeple) would be having the chapters as members of the WMF and the
>> >> > community as members of the chapters. There are other global
>> >> > non-profits that work along those lines. (The International
>> Federation
>> >> > of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, for example.)
>>
>> >> Why? What's broken at the moment?
>>
>> > The English full-history dump, for one.
>>
>> And that would work if the WMF were a membership organiza-
>> tion? Interesting.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
> If it were once again a membership organization it would imply that the
> Foundation had not reneged on the original vision without the ability of the
> community, which approved that vision, to provide input on the modified
> input. It would turn around the Foundation's usurping of community power. It
> would give each community member a voice.
>

Sorry, "input" is an overloaded word for me due to my occupation in neural
networks. I happen to be working with several "input layers" right now and
flubbed that entirely ;) But it should say, "to provide input on the
modified vision."
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by thekohser
2009/8/28 Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Dalton asked:
>
> "Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me."
>
> For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as
> opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut" at all the "trolling" and
> the "time wasting" any critics might have to offer:
>
> http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/858/wikipedias-fund-raising-success-questioned
>
> Please make sure to read my comment there, which references this document:

Your comment there (I didn't read all of it, I prefer to limit the
time I spent reading people whine) seem to be mainly complaining about
the salaries paid to WMF management. Compared to people doing similar
jobs elsewhere, their compensation is decidedly modest.

> Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
> shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director.  As
> far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
> on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels.

I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being
deferred. That money will still be spent on tech. Are you objecting to
WMF expansion? I think the fact that the WMF can sustain a larger
staff is a good thing, it will allow them to do much more.

> Pay attention, Thomas.  I've discussed this issue in many places.  On the
> Wikimedia-controlled places, I'm often censored or blocked, but there are
> plenty of other non-WMF venues where facts can be laid out for the curious
> to learn the truth:
>
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

I think you mean "Truth", with a capital 'T'. I've never been
interested in learning the Truth.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 2009/8/28 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> > Depends how you want to look at it, since the dollar bills aren't color
> > coded or anything.  But the last budget I bothered to look at (which I
> > believe is the one before the last one released) was underspent in the
> area
> > of technology and overspent in other areas.  So I think it's valid to say
> > that "tech money was spent on other things".  As I said, I didn't even
> > bother looking at the last budget.  After hearing Sue admit that the one
> I'm
> > talking about was padded, there was little point.
>
> There were explanations for all those over- and under-spends. I
> considered them all to be good explanations. I would have to look at
> the report again to be sure, but I think there was a better than
> budgeted surplus in the year you are talking about, so the reason for
> not spending the full tech budget wasn't lack of funds from having
> spent them elsewhere.


Regardless, I wish they had spent the full tech budget, hired an experienced
CTO, and fixed the dumps.  Plus a bunch of other things (I don't think
single-user-login had yet been implemented, and I'm pretty sure most of the
more advanced features which supposedly depended on single-user-login like
cross-project watchlists still haven't been implemented).

As you said, whether or not that would have happened given a different board
structure, who knows.  But I think there's a chance it would have been
better.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being
> deferred. That money will still be spent on tech.


That's not what happened.  In 2007-2008, the tech budget was $2.6 million.
Only $900,000 was spent.  In 2008-2009, the tech budget was $2.7 million.
If the tech underspend was deferred, the 2008-2009 tech budget would have
been at least $4.3 million (more since the total budget was higher).  The
money wasn't spent on tech.

Even if it was, it makes no sense to defer it.  Why wait three years to
implement a new dump system, when you can implement one today for the same
price (lower, probably)?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
While I disagree with the modesty of the department head salaries, I feel that it is up to the ED to decide who gets paid what. I have qualms about the increases in expenditures, but am encouraged by the resourcefulness of staff in raising money.




________________________________
From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 2:06:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

2009/8/28 Gregory Kohs <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Dalton asked:
>
> "Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me."
>
> For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as
> opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut" at all the "trolling" and
> the "time wasting" any critics might have to offer:
>
> http://philanthropy.com/giveandtake/article/858/wikipedias-fund-raising-success-questioned
>
> Please make sure to read my comment there, which references this document:

Your comment there (I didn't read all of it, I prefer to limit the
time I spent reading people whine) seem to be mainly complaining about
the salaries paid to WMF management. Compared to people doing similar
jobs elsewhere, their compensation is decidedly modest.

> Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
> shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director.  As
> far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
> on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels.

I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being
deferred. That money will still be spent on tech. Are you objecting to
WMF expansion? I think the fact that the WMF can sustain a larger
staff is a good thing, it will allow them to do much more.

> Pay attention, Thomas.  I've discussed this issue in many places.  On the
> Wikimedia-controlled places, I'm often censored or blocked, but there are
> plenty of other non-WMF venues where facts can be laid out for the curious
> to learn the truth:
>
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia

I think you mean "Truth", with a capital 'T'. I've never been
interested in learning the Truth.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Mark
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
>> shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director.  As
>> far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
>> on the Executive Director's need to expand staff to unprecedented levels.
>
> I think most of the tech underspend was due to spending being
> deferred. That money will still be spent on tech. Are you objecting to
> WMF expansion? I think the fact that the WMF can sustain a larger
> staff is a good thing, it will allow them to do much more.

I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and community/volunteer-based
organizations with large staffs risk capture of the overall project by
the official organization, rather than the community and volunteers they
ostensibly act as support staff for.

It's not inevitable the outcomes will be bad, but it's worth thinking
about, I think, especially as the track record of traditional non-profit
organizations overall is quite poor in that department.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Thomas Dalton
2009/8/29 Delirium <[hidden email]>:

> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
> staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and community/volunteer-based
> organizations with large staffs risk capture of the overall project by
> the official organization, rather than the community and volunteers they
> ostensibly act as support staff for.
>
> It's not inevitable the outcomes will be bad, but it's worth thinking
> about, I think, especially as the track record of traditional non-profit
> organizations overall is quite poor in that department.

Those are certainly risks that should not be ignored. I think so far
we've done pretty well on that front and I am optimistic that we will
continue to do so (the community will simply not allow the WMF to
capture the projects). We mustn't be complacent, though - only by
keeping a close eye on things can we avoid them heading off in the
wrong direction. If we do allow things to go wrong it will be
difficult to get back on track.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

metasj
In reply to this post by Mark
Hello Mark,

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Delirium<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
> staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and community/volunteer-based
> organizations with large staffs risk capture of the overall project by
> the official organization, rather than the community and volunteers they
> ostensibly act as support staff for.

Can you say more about this  -- both what more you can do and the
risks run -- and cite the track record[s] you mention?  Do you feel
there are similar capacity/risk tradeoffs of larger/more inclusive
communities?  (some might say that the current editing community is
becoming an organization separating itself from the general public,
building barriers to participation; and that this [de facto]
organization risks capturing the overall knowledge-sharing project
within existing guidelines and policies, rather than encouraging bold
participation among the wider world, who are the ostensible audience
and body of future contributors.)

Thanks,
Sj

> It's not inevitable the outcomes will be bad, but it's worth thinking
> about, I think, especially as the track record of traditional non-profit
> organizations overall is quite poor in that department.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Mark
Samuel Klein wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Delirium<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
>> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
>> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
>> staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and community/volunteer-based
>> organizations with large staffs risk capture of the overall project by
>> the official organization, rather than the community and volunteers they
>> ostensibly act as support staff for.
>
> Can you say more about this  -- both what more you can do and the
> risks run -- and cite the track record[s] you mention?


Well, the last part is a judgment call: I'm personally skeptical of the
extent to which most non-profit organizations remain representative of
the communities they were originally started by, as opposed to the
professional staff and boards of directors they're currently run by.
That is, is the organization itself directing the effort, taking
decisions from the top down; or is the organization there to provide
legal and financial backing for implementation of a community's goals? I
prefer the 2nd variety.

One example I consider near ideal is the relationship between Software
in the Public Interest (a non-profit organization) and the Debian
project (a community-run project that SPI is the legal and financial
backing for). Despite not being a non-profit, the relationship between
Canonical and Ubuntu is also almost along those lines, too. In both
cases, there's a separate organizational structure for the community and
for the legal organization--- SPI does not appoint Debian project leads,
and the SPI board does not pass Debian resolutions. Wikimedia so far is
run almost like that, though not quite as strongly.

Basically: why does formal organization with legal structure exist at
all? For purely online organizations, it *almost* doesn't need to exist.
But, a decentralized group of people with no legal status has difficulty
maintaining a server room, purchasing bandwidth, and similar things. So
one does need to exist. And once one exists, perhaps it can provide some
other assistance-- if a group of community members think something ought
to be done that requires some legal status or money, they could go to
the organization with a request, like we currently do with a paid tech
staff that implements (some) (sensible) feature requests. But I'm
worried about whether that will creep towards the organization itself
increasingly running the show, as opposed to playing mainly a
supporting/implementation/financing role.


> Do you feel
> there are similar capacity/risk tradeoffs of larger/more inclusive
> communities?  (some might say that the current editing community is
> becoming an organization separating itself from the general public,
> building barriers to participation; and that this [de facto]
> organization risks capturing the overall knowledge-sharing project
> within existing guidelines and policies, rather than encouraging bold
> participation among the wider world, who are the ostensible audience
> and body of future contributors.)

I think there are risks/tradeoffs there, but I don't see them as quite
the same kind. For, say, the English Wikipedia (what I'm most familiar
with), "Why does it work at all?" is a pretty large question, but I
think to a large extent it comes down precisely to the fact that our
community *isn't* the public at large, but is a subset of the public
that is generally well-informed, has some degree of shared culture and
community norms, and is committed to a set of goals not everyone shares.
It's worth thinking about whether we're unnecessarily excluding people
who could share those goals, or could change things to improve the
quality of the encyclopedia; but I think also worth thinking about
whether there are important elements of those cultural norms that are
key to the success of the project and shouldn't be messed with lightly.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Tim Landscheidt
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> [...]
> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is a good principle for maintaining
> the status quo, it isn't a good principle if you want progress. The
> job isn't done yet, so progress would be good. If you want progress
> you have to be willing to implement enhancements as well as fixes. One
> of the main fundamental problems I have found with the WMF is with
> regards to prioritising. Often the WMF doesn't prioritise the same
> things as the community seems to want. The dumps that Anthony
> mentioned is a good example of that - a significant number of
> community members complained about the dumps not working for years
> before much progress was made and they still aren't completely
> working. The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise (or they
> may not, no detailed discussion of the options ever took place in
> public so it is difficult to know what conclusion would have been
> reached).

Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
otherwise.

  As the re-prioritization seems to have primarily been
triggered by River's rant to this very list, do you find his
behaviour or the subsequent board decision disrepectful of
the community?

Tim


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Anthony-73
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is a good principle for maintaining
> > the status quo, it isn't a good principle if you want progress. The
> > job isn't done yet, so progress would be good. If you want progress
> > you have to be willing to implement enhancements as well as fixes. One
> > of the main fundamental problems I have found with the WMF is with
> > regards to prioritising. Often the WMF doesn't prioritise the same
> > things as the community seems to want. The dumps that Anthony
> > mentioned is a good example of that - a significant number of
> > community members complained about the dumps not working for years
> > before much progress was made and they still aren't completely
> > working. The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
> > the community had the final say they may have done otherwise (or they
> > may not, no detailed discussion of the options ever took place in
> > public so it is difficult to know what conclusion would have been
> > reached).
>
> Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
> campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
> tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
> two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
> otherwise.


Well, personally I was responding to the "it ain't broke" part, rather than
proposing a fix.  I don't think having all the board members elected by the
current Special:Boardvote rules would fix the dumps.  In fact, I think if
anything it would keep the dumps broken longer.

One of the biggest problems is that the WMF doesn't really have "a
community".  The individual projects have communities, which to some extent
overlap, I wouldn't call that the WMF community.  Activity on a single
project is all that's needed for eligibility to vote for board members.
 There's no need to even feign commitment to the larger goals of the
foundation as a whole.

I guess there's now a wiki for the WMF community: strategy.wikimedia.org.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Tim Landscheidt
Tim Landscheidt wrote:

> Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
> campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
> tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
> two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
> otherwise.
>
>   As the re-prioritization seems to have primarily been
> triggered by River's rant to this very list, do you find his
> behaviour or the subsequent board decision disrepectful of
> the community?
>
>  
This is not actually that large a surprise as it seems.

A candidate choosing dumps as his main plank of
attack in running for the board would most likely
be perceived as somebody working as a Trojan
Horse for a serious attempt to fork.

The one thing good dumps preserve is the possibility
of rejuvenating our projects should WMF ever fail -
heaven forfend! But they also not-inconsequently are
vital to an attempt at forking, even while the WMF
were alive and well.

So as a former candidate, let me just state that for
the best of reasons - sustainability - dumps are
indeed a priority for all that take sustainability
seriously. This is not a matter of opinion, but just
a bald fact.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Brian J Mingus
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> > Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
> > campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
> > tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
> > two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
> > otherwise.
> >
> >   As the re-prioritization seems to have primarily been
> > triggered by River's rant to this very list, do you find his
> > behaviour or the subsequent board decision disrepectful of
> > the community?
> >
> >
> This is not actually that large a surprise as it seems.
>
> A candidate choosing dumps as his main plank of
> attack in running for the board would most likely
> be perceived as somebody working as a Trojan
> Horse for a serious attempt to fork.
>
> The one thing good dumps preserve is the possibility
> of rejuvenating our projects should WMF ever fail -
> heaven forfend! But they also not-inconsequently are
> vital to an attempt at forking, even while the WMF
> were alive and well.
>
> So as a former candidate, let me just state that for
> the best of reasons - sustainability - dumps are
> indeed a priority for all that take sustainability
> seriously. This is not a matter of opinion, but just
> a bald fact.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


The dumps are not needed for a fork. Sure, the dumps would be convenient to
someone who wanted to fork, but that's a long shot once per decade serious
discussion and the fork could be achieved without the dump. Dumps are
primarily useful to researchers, to mirrors, to people interested in
archiving a copy of all knowledge on their computer, and only as an
ancillary affordance should they be thought of as being there for forkers.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Domas Mituzas
In reply to this post by Tim Landscheidt
Hello,

> Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have
> campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec-
> tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the
> two before, I do not see why the board should have decided
> otherwise.

You poor souls, always willing to see just black.
Board has raised the topic of dumps multiple times, and I personally  
as a board member, not as a volunteer, discussed this issue with  
people responsible in the staff, still, I see "promoting dumps  
technology" as somewhat way too low level for board candidacy platform.

Anyway, back then it didn't need board member campaigning - whole  
board knew it is important task, it needed executive level decision,  
that we need someone dedicated to this task, and once such discussion  
was made, dumps started rolling. I don't remember anyone in the board  
who wouldn't treat this as a priority issue.
There wasn't anyone in tech team who wouldn't think it is an important  
issue. There wasn't anyone in organization who'd think it wasn't an  
important issue. And yes, it was matter of overall priorities  
execution, which got resolved somehow, right?

Thomas wrote:
> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise

Or not done anything \o/

You seem to fail to understand, that for years tech team was also a  
volunteer body - though of course, eventually more and more people got  
on the paycheck.
Well, even after getting the paycheck, extreme-skill people are  
motivated way more when they believe in what they are doing, and just  
having the "community have a final say" won't help with it.
Frankly, the major input about the dumps that the tech team got from  
the community was "you suck where are our dumps" kind of input - with  
lots of whining and no rationalization :-) Well, thats the impression  
probably caused by few people on few people :)

Cheers,
Domas

P.S. And community doesn't want direct technology expertise at the  
board level anyway, mwaha ;-)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Anthony-73
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Domas Mituzas <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> Anyway, back then it didn't need board member campaigning - whole
> board knew it is important task, it needed executive level decision,
> that we need someone dedicated to this task, and once such discussion
> was made, dumps started rolling.


Right...where can I go to download the full history English Wikipedia dump?

Still doesn't work.  And yes, it needs an executive level decision, and it
needs a kick in the ass from the board to get the executive level to make
that decision.

How many millions of dollars were left unspent by the tech team a couple
years ago?

And yes, it was matter of overall priorities
> execution, which got resolved somehow, right?
>

It's not resolved.  And even if it got resolved today, that'd still be three
years too late.


> You seem to fail to understand, that for years tech team was also a
> volunteer body - though of course, eventually more and more people got
> on the paycheck.
>

And whose fault is that?  The fault of the CTO, which is in turn the fault
of the board.


> Frankly, the major input about the dumps that the tech team got from
> the community was "you suck where are our dumps" kind of input - with
> lots of whining and no rationalization :-)


No "rationalization"?  I can't say I understand what you're asking for.  The
dumps will be fixed when *one person* is put in charge of fixing them, and
when that person has at least several hours a week to dedicate to the task.
 The dumps aren't like encyclopedia articles.  You can't have a bunch of
people adding little things here and there and expect a working product, and
it's unrealistic to expect someone to take charge of this sort of thing for
free, especially in the current economy.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Domas Mituzas
2009/9/15 Domas Mituzas <[hidden email]>:
> Thomas wrote:
>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
>
> Or not done anything \o/

I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
just responding to the claim that there was nothing to fix.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Tim Landscheidt
Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise

>> Or not done anything \o/

> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
> just responding to the claim that there was nothing to fix.

JFTR: I did not claim in any way that there was nothing to
fix. I asked what - in your opinion - was to be fixed and
how a different form of organization - in your opinion -
would affect that process positively.

Tim


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Thomas Dalton
2009/9/15 Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]>:

> Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>>>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise
>
>>> Or not done anything \o/
>
>> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
>> just responding to the claim that there was nothing to fix.
>
> JFTR: I did not claim in any way that there was nothing to
> fix. I asked what - in your opinion - was to be fixed and
> how a different form of organization - in your opinion -
> would affect that process positively.

Apologies for misrepresenting you. My point stands, though - I wasn't
trying to suggest a definite solution.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Tim Landscheidt
Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>>> The tech team prioritised other things over the dumps, had
>>>>> the community had the final say they may have done otherwise

>>>> Or not done anything \o/

>>> I said as much. I wasn't trying to suggest a definite solution, I was
>>> just responding to the claim that there was nothing to fix.

>> JFTR: I did not claim in any way that there was nothing to
>> fix. I asked what - in your opinion - was to be fixed and
>> how a different form of organization - in your opinion -
>> would affect that process positively.

> Apologies for misrepresenting you. My point stands, though - I wasn't
> trying to suggest a definite solution.

What "point"? That a different form of organization may have
led to different results?

Tim


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Expert board members - a suggestion

Domas Mituzas
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Hi!

> Right...where can I go to download the full history English  
> Wikipedia dump?

It is being done!

> Still doesn't work.  And yes, it needs an executive level decision,  
> and it
> needs a kick in the ass from the board to get the executive level to  
> make
> that decision.

That work is being done at the moment, I'd think that it is being  
handled properly. On the other hand, I'm no longer in position of  
judging that from above, and can enjoy fully not caring ;-)

> How many millions of dollars were left unspent by the tech team a  
> couple
> years ago?

How many?

> It's not resolved.  And even if it got resolved today, that'd still  
> be three
> years too late.

We're how many years late with WYSIWYG? :)

> And whose fault is that?  The fault of the CTO, which is in turn the  
> fault
> of the board.

Why are you looking for faults? CTO had to operate under constraints  
set by financial management, financial management was done based on  
conservative non-profit operation model.

> No "rationalization"?  I can't say I understand what you're asking  
> for.  The
> dumps will be fixed when *one person* is put in charge of fixing  
> them, and
> when that person has at least several hours a week to dedicate to  
> the task.

Is that something I don't know? Thats exactly what I was telling to  
anyone interested. Thanks for repeating what I said :)

> The dumps aren't like encyclopedia articles.

Thats lots and lots of encyclopedia articles!

> You can't have a bunch of
> people adding little things here and there and expect a working  
> product, and
> it's unrealistic to expect someone to take charge of this sort of  
> thing for
> free, especially in the current economy.

You seem to have entirely failing understanding of motivation  
technology volunteers can have.
We have amazing project work done on search by Robert, toolserver  
operation by River, do note, how much work on CDN infrastructure that  
was done by Mark, or simply all the work done before by Brion and Tim.

Whole our technology infrastructure is built by people who have insane  
amount of project-derived motivation. You seem not to notice it. Pity.

On the other hand, it isn't "someone to take charge ... for free", it  
is just some work that motivates too much, and Tomasz does great job  
at it, even though he doesn't entirely forfeit his social life to have  
this move faster :)

Domas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345