[Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
61 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Lisa Gruwell
Hi All-

The funder has agreed to share the Knowledge Engine grant agreement.  Here
are the links to that document and other relevant communication about the
Discovery team's work:

1) Knowledge Engine Grant Agreement
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf>
2) Statement from Lila on her talk page and discussion
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant>
3) Discovery FAQ <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FAQ>

Thank you,
Lisa Gruwell

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>
> Perhaps after the experiences of the past few months WMF governance will
> re-align itself with the value of openness.
>
> Hope springs eternal,
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz Jemielniak-4
In reply to this post by Pine W
hi Pine,


On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> My impression of this whole situation with the Knight Foundation is that
> the WMF's strong tendency toward closed-door and closed-loop processes are
> hurting WMF more than helping it. If WMF had been transparent with the
> community about this situation in the first place and a consultation with
> the community had happened as negotiations were underway with Knight, I am
> wondering if a mutually agreeable solution could have been created at that
> time. Now we're in the midst of a lot of skepticism, suspicion, and
> political difficulties.
>

I am not certain if it would even make sense for the WMF to engage the
community every time it applies for an exploratory grant in such amount
(roughly 1/300th of its budget). Also, after some consultation internally,
my understanding is that in practice it will often not be sensible to
insist on publishing grant applications, basically because many donors are
just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do not want to
decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled out in public as the only ones who refused).

Having stated that, I am happy to acknowledge that in this particular case
(of a great, open-minded donor, with whom we have a good and long
relationship) it is reasonable (and possible) to release this info, also to
cut the wild speculations.

Lisa - awesome job, many thanks for making this happen!

best,

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Pine W
Lisa, thank you.

I am getting the sense from the available information about this grant that
the Knight Foundation is well intentioned. My concerns here, and I think
that the concerns from other community members, are primarily related to
WMF's handling of this situation. I for one would be happy to see
improvements to internal search on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons that
would benefit our readers as well as our community members.

On WMF's side, since WMF is exploring the question "Would users go to
Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" (quote from
page 2 of the grant document), it seems to me that potential re-scoping of
Wikipedia would merit a conversation with the community. Looking at page 10
of the grant, the scope of the Knowledge Engine project appears to be
aligned with Wikimedia values, but it looks to me like the scope and
methods of implementing the Knowledge Project should have been discussed
with the community.

Dariuz, regarding your statement that

> after some consultation internally, my understanding is that in practice
it will often
> not be sensible to insist on publishing grant applications, basically
because many
> donors are just not as progressive as we would like them to be, and we do
not
> want to decrease our chances for a grant in the future (donors may not be
> comfortable releasing this, and in the same time they will not want to be
singled
> out in public as the only ones who refused).

I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
openness is not for sale at any price.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I would respond by saying that openness is a value in the Wikimedia
> movement and that our values should not be for sale at any price. Policy
> and practice should be that documents for all restricted grants received by
> WMF will be published on Commons and that the community will be notified of
> all restricted grants that are being contemplated by WMF. If a potential
> donor is uncomfortable with that, then they can donate unrestricted funds
> anonymously, and those funds must be spent only on programs that are
> explicitly authorized under WMF's published annual plans or sent to the
> reserve or the endowment. Again I will say that I hope that our value of
> openness is not for sale at any price.
>

You twist  my argument as I was proposing to put our values for sale. I
don't think it is even borderline close to ASG, or other norms typical for
Wikimedia space, and I don't think it is a fair reflection of what I wrote.

I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
especially of smaller amount,  to be made public, if it impacts our ability
to gather funds. It is a decision that we should make after listening to
professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
a natural tendency that we want to know more.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
having access to all documents if it may impair our work. It is also
transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
understandable in the circumstances and fine. But at some point the Board
also needs to focus on what it is for as well: setting the vision, thinking
about the wider horizon.

If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
able to move forward.

dj




>
>


________________________________________________________________________________
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
 [hidden email]
<[hidden email]> as a more permanent contact
address. *
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Pete Forsyth-2
Dariusz,

Thank you for engaging on this. I believe the important thing now is to
understand what happened specifically with the Knowledge Engine grant; but
you make a claim about a more general policy that I think should be
addressed. (I will address KE issues separately.)

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I believe that it may be impractical to require all grant applications,
> especially of smaller amount,  to be made public, if it impacts our ability
> to gather funds.


Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy?
To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change
that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF
policy.[1]

I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as "smaller."
While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me that it being
over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift Policy would
naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in grant
fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a
restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But
perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)


> It is a decision that we should make after listening to
> professionals in this area (who have sat with the big donors on hundreds of
> occasions, and also know our movement inside-out), not just being driven by
> a natural tendency that we want to know more.
>

Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open
knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail.
There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may
be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of
information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally
anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?

I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last
month:
* Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
* Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
* WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
* Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
* Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments of
WMF, past and present
http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/

There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF
has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity,
and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it
receives as well.

If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection,
beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is
something that should be publicly stated.

Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
> having access to all documents if it may impair our work.


I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect
ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm
confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation
is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and
often justified.


> It is also
> transparency of process (understanding HOW a decision is made, not
> necessarily seeing all documents), and also the reasoning (explaining WHY
> either WMF or the Board believe or do something). In both areas there is a
> scope for improvement and I am a full supporter of such improvements.
>

Strongly agree, and thank you for addressing this.

And yet, the bigger picture is that we have been literally flooded with
> information requests and comments over the last two months, and we have
> spent most of our time on that. I understand the context and I'd say it is
> understandable in the circumstances and fine.


Again, thank you for acknowledging. When mistakes are made, often a
consequence is that more work needs to be done.


> But at some point the Board also needs to focus on what it is for as well:
> setting the vision, thinking about the wider horizon.


I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating
what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap
strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The
very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray
widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.


> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website,


Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't
even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should
not make in pursuit of this goal.

we should focus externally more,


Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that
there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that
Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of
respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.

and start building more stuff that our readers care
> about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
> the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> grit my teeth).


Wonderful to hear you say that. But the beyond individual statements like
this, we have not heard from the organization about what kinds of mistakes
were made with VE (or with other software deployments). As Asaf recently
expressed [2] (earning much praise), it is highly valuable, when a mistake
is made, to acknowledge it in some detail, and in a way that respects the
depth of the mistake. Without such an expression, it is hard to have shared
confidence that lessons have been learned; and without learning, it is
indeed hard to move forward.

>

But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
> able to move forward.
>

Agreed. I remain hopeful that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and senior
management will take steps that will permit us to do so.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-October/116339.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/So_you%27ve_made_a_mistake_and_it%27s_public.
..
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

SarahSV
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
> about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
> the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to be
> able to move forward.
>
> dj
>
>
Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Anthony Cole
It was obviously evolving as the project moved from initial
conceptualisation to the establishment of the Discovery team but,
nevertheless, a clear, meaningful statement of the vision for the project
(as it was imagined at the time) would have been appropriate when the team
was put together. I think Lila has recently acknowledged this.

The present focus seems to be on improving search within Wikimedia, but the
language used by both WMF and Knight leaves them open to later extending
Wikipedia's search options to include free knowledge outside our projects.
I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the
reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.

And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and
adequately fund projects like this.

On Friday, 12 February 2016, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> > focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers
> care
> > about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and
> we,
> > the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> > grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to
> be
> > able to move forward.
> >
> > dj
> >
> >
> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Did you notice MZMcBride's recent link, demonstrating that then-Executive
>> Director Sue Gardner asserted exactly the opposite, explicitly as policy?
>> To my knowledge, there has not been any new policy articulated to change
>> that; so even though it was 2011, I would understand this to still be WMF
>> policy.[1]
>>
>
My understanding is that it was an expression of Sue's genuine intent, that
has not been consistently followed, nor made into a policy.


>
> I am also curious about the characterization of a $250k grant as
> "smaller." While there are certainly much larger grants, it seems to me
> that it being over the $100k threshold that subjects it to the WMF Gift
> Policy would naturally classify it as "larger." Certainly, when I worked in
> grant fund-raising for WMF it was unthinkable that we would ever accept a
> restricted grant for less than $100k; this was a firmly held principle. But
> perhaps that is another policy that has been changed (or forgotten?)
>

Well, for an organization with our budget, it definitely is not a "big
picture" grant. Of course a threshold has to be put somewhere. I'm not
aware of actual WMF classifications. I only referred to "large" as
"significantly affecting strategy".



> Many professionals who are deeply involved in the Wikimedia and open
> knowledge movements have already commented on this topic in great detail.
> There is strong consensus around the value of transparency; while there may
> be an opposing view (and while there are certainly some pieces of
> information that should not be published), I have yet to hear a generally
> anti-transparency view articulated. Have you?
>

I don't think it is transparency vs. non-transparency. Rather, it is
operational effectiveness vs. good communication with the community. Both
are important and being transparent is definitely something we should do
more.



>
> I surveyed the views of the following individuals in my blog post last
> month:
> * Former WMF executive director Sue Gardner
> * Former WMF deputy director Erik Moller
> * WMF advisory board member (former?) Wayne Mackintosh
> * Mozilla executive director Mark Surman
> * Various members of the fund-raising and fund-disseminating departments
> of WMF, past and present
> http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/
>
> There is a strong trend toward transparency in the philanthropy world. WMF
> has long been a guiding light in that trend in its grant-GIVING capacity,
> and in certain instances has reflected those values around the grant it
> receives as well.
>

I think this is very useful as a background, thanks for taking the time to
gather this!



>
> If there is a new, contrary policy -- or even a contrary predilection,
> beyond your own opinions as an individual trustee -- I think this is
> something that should be publicly stated.
>

I'm not aware of any policy of this sort, either way.


>
> Transparency is important, but it should not be reduced to the community
>> having access to all documents if it may impair our work.
>
>
> I agree with this, but it is a straw man. Nobody could reasonably expect
> ALL documents to be shared publicly (and if they have stated otherwise, I'm
> confident that is merely a kind of shorthand). The important conversation
> is about default positions; exceptions are always worth considering, and
> often justified.
>

My only point is that I have a feeling that perhaps there is more to do
outside of our microcosm.


>
>
> I do not believe those activities are opposed to more clearly articulating
> what has happened around the Knight grant. I believe those things overlap
> strongly; the board need not turn its attention from one to the other. The
> very core issue around the Knowledge Engine grant is that it seems to stray
> widely from the common understanding of the vision and the wider horizon.
>

I don't refer to Knight grant specifically. I refer to the general approach
- we lack the strategic vision and focus on issues that matter for this
organization's survival, and we zero in a grant that is worth 1/300 of its
budget disproportionately. The misunderstandings should be clarified, of
course.


>
>
> Desirable, but not an absolute requirement. Our vision statement doesn't
> even require us to be a web site. There are many compromises that we should
> not make in pursuit of this goal.
>

sure, but you know what I mean. Surviving is not easy when you're a fat cat
used to being fine.


>
> we should focus externally more,
>
>
> Citation needed -- it seems there is very strong consensus lately that
> there are major problems within the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope that
> Trustees will not ignore these views, coming from a wide variety of
> respectable sources, with mere counter-assertion.
>

there is no citation needed, this is my opinion that to survive the next 10
years we should focus on what we need to do. Surely, we can improve the
foundation and processes. We can improve them a lot. But will this make the
difference for this big picture? If you believe so, then of course it is
essential to discuss it.

The Board naturally does perform oversight over the organization, too - but
what I'm saying is that there is a LOT OF discussion about the foundation
(needed) and A LITTLE about our future (desperately needed, though
lacking).


>
>
> Wonderful to hear you say that. But the beyond individual statements like
> this, we have not heard from the organization about what kinds of mistakes
> were made with VE (or with other software deployments). As Asaf recently
> expressed [2] (earning much praise), it is highly valuable, when a mistake
> is made, to acknowledge it in some detail, and in a way that respects the
> depth of the mistake. Without such an expression, it is hard to have shared
> confidence that lessons have been learned; and without learning, it is
> indeed hard to move forward.
>


I agree that learning from mistakes and public reflection in such cases is
much needed and basically useful - not to apportion the blame, but to
understand and avoid in the future.

However, I have a feeling that our culture of discussion now is really
pretty much hostile - there is a lot of animosity, bad will assumptions,
and us vs. them mentality, every now and then. This is also an INTERNAL
problem that should be addressed - but addressing it will not likely change
the big picture neither :)

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by SarahSV
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>
> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>
>
>
My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine
that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively
competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction
(not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

metasj
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Thanks for sharing, always interesting to see these processes in detail.

On Feb 11, 2016 19:53, "Anthony Cole"
> I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the
> reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.
>
> And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and
> adequately fund projects like this.

Agreed on all counts.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

SarahSV
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
>> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
>> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
>> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>>
>>
>>
> My understanding is essentially that we want to engage in a search engine
> that would encompass all Wikimedia projects. I can't imagine us effectively
> competing Google and I would not consider this to be a sensible direction
> (not because it is not tempting, but because it is too costly and risky).
>
>
> ​Hi ​
Dariusz,

​T​
he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet."
And that it will "democratize the discovery of media, news and information
– it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and
openly curated ... It will be the Internet's first transparent search
engine ..."

It also says that one of the challenges that could "disrupt the project" is
​"Third-party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big
commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar
project, which would reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest
challenge, and an external one."

It's hard to see how Google developing a new search engine would disrupt
the Foundation improving search within Wikimedia projects.

The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
>

>>
>>
> ​Hi ​
> Dariusz,
>
> ​T​
> he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.

My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public
resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
general search engine of all content including commercial one.

And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
across projects.

I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.

.
>
> The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which board
meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
>

I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).

Good night!

Dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Pine W
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:

1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?

2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
especially without consulting the community.

3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested
to hear your thoughts.

Pine



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> >
>
> >>
> >>
> > ​Hi ​
> > Dariusz,
> >
> > ​T​
> > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system for
> discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
>
> My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public
> resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> general search engine of all content including commercial one.
>
> And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> across projects.
>
> I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
> before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
>
> .
> >
> > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
> ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which board
> meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> >
>
> I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
> going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
>
> Good night!
>
> Dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?

Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
and that is ok.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> that others have asked, I'll add a few:
>
> 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> mentioned in
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?
>
> 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
> small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question
> of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> especially without consulting the community.
>
> 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those
> conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent
> round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making
> the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring
> the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I
> think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested
> to hear your thoughts.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ​Hi ​
> > > Dariusz,
> > >
> > > ​T​
> > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> for
> > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
> >
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> open/public
> > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> >
> > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > across projects.
> >
> > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
> > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> >
> > .
> > >
> > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
> > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> board
> > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > >
> >
> > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
> > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> >
> > Good night!
> >
> > Dj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Gerard,

I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.

It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.

Michel

On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
> you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
> Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
>
> Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
> and that is ok.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> >
> > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > mentioned in
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> ?
> >
> > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> relatively
> > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> question
> > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> > especially without consulting the community.
> >
> > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> those
> > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> recent
> > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> making
> > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> restoring
> > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill.
> I
> > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> interested
> > to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > Dariusz,
> > > >
> > > > ​T​
> > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> > for
> > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> Internet.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > open/public
> > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > >
> > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > > across projects.
> > >
> > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> Board
> > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > >
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> 2015–2016
> > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> > board
> > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
> by
> > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > >
> > > Good night!
> > >
> > > Dj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...

My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
money for our environment and not for an endowment.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
>
> It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
> hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
>
> Michel
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> are
> > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> forward.
> > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> >
> > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> it
> > and that is ok.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> questions
> > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > >
> > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > > mentioned in
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > ?
> > >
> > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > relatively
> > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> about
> > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > question
> > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> about
> > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> direction,
> > > especially without consulting the community.
> > >
> > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> address
> > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > those
> > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > recent
> > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > making
> > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> this
> > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally,
> I
> > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > restoring
> > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> goodwill.
> > I
> > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > interested
> > > to hear your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > >
> > > > > ​T​
> > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> Wikimedia
> > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> system
> > > for
> > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > Internet.
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > open/public
> > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > > >
> > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > > > across projects.
> > > >
> > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> > Board
> > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> > 2015–2016
> > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> > > board
> > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
> > by
> > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > > >
> > > > Good night!
> > > >
> > > > Dj
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Robert Fernandez
Actually, you are complaining.

I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many
self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics.  I'd hardly put Pine in
that group.  The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be
described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > > making
> > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
> to
> > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> > this
> > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> the
> > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > restoring
> > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > goodwill.
> > > I
> > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > interested
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​T​
> > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> > system
> > > > for
> > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > > Internet.
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > > open/public
> > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not
> a
> > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > > > >
> > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
> searches
> > > > > across projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> > > Board
> > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> > > 2015–2016
> > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to
> which
> > > > board
> > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
> question
> > > by
> > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > > > >
> > > > > Good night!
> > > > >
> > > > > Dj
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Risker
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
staff doing lots of things.

I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.

With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
though.

Risker/Anne

On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > > making
> > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
> to
> > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> > this
> > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> the
> > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > restoring
> > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > goodwill.
> > > I
> > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > interested
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​T​
> > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> > system
> > > > for
> > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > > Internet.
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > > open/public
> > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not
> a
> > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > > > >
> > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
> searches
> > > > > across projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> > > Board
> > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> > > 2015–2016
> > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to
> which
> > > > board
> > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
> question
> > > by
> > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > > > >
> > > > > Good night!
> > > > >
> > > > > Dj
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Anthony Cole
Anne, regarding:

"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
sought is higher than that amount."

I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised
*of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
prepared.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> staff doing lots of things.
>
> I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
> so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
> leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
>
> With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
> also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
> be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
> the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
> though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> not
> > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> official
> > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> >
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> > and
> > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> look!
> > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > >
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> > are
> > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> When
> > > are
> > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > forward.
> > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > have
> > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was
> to
> > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
> like
> > > it
> > > > and that is ok.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >        GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > > questions
> > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> > not
> > > > > mentioned in
> > > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > > relatively
> > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > > about
> > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> > about
> > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > > question
> > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
> an
> > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > > about
> > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > > direction,
> > > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > > address
> > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
> have
> > > > those
> > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > > recent
> > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
> is
> > > > making
> > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
> difficult
> > to
> > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
> of
> > > this
> > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> > Personally,
> > > I
> > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> > the
> > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > > restoring
> > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > > goodwill.
> > > > I
> > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > > interested
> > > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ​T​
> > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> > > system
> > > > > for
> > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > > > Internet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > > > open/public
> > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
> not
> > a
> > > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
> > searches
> > > > > > across projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
> the
> > > > Board
> > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> > > > 2015–2016
> > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to
> > which
> > > > > board
> > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
> > question
> > > > by
> > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good night!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dj
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

Gnangarra
some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be
adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices.

where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content
influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not
the donations but rather the grants both given directly to a project or
those being sort by the WMF for a project that are the concerns. The BoT
should review these at some point the volunteer community should also be
consulted before acceptance

donation: is something given freely
Grant: is something given for a purpose

On 13 February 2016 at 10:23, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> *advised
> *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> prepared.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> its
> > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> should
> > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> believe
> > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> notification,
> > though.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
> a
> > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > official
> > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> and
> > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> > When
> > > > are
> > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > > forward.
> > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> > achieve?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > > have
> > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she
> was
> > to
> > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
> > like
> > > > it
> > > > > and that is ok.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >        GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > > > questions
> > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is
> it
> > > not
> > > > > > mentioned in
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > > > relatively
> > > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
> opacity
> > > > about
> > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> > > about
> > > > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > > > question
> > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
> > an
> > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
> thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > > > direction,
> > > > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > > > address
> > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about
> our
> > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
> > have
> > > > > those
> > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds.
> The
> > > > > recent
> > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
> > is
> > > > > making
> > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more
> > difficult
> > > to
> > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> > > Personally,
> > > > I
> > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > > > restoring
> > > > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > > > goodwill.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > > > interested
> > > > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pine
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" <[hidden email]>
> > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ​T​
> > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> > > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is
> a]
> > > > system
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > > > > Internet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > > > > open/public
> > > > > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
> > not
> > > a
> > > > > > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
> > > searches
> > > > > > > across projects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
> > the
> > > > > Board
> > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> > > > > 2015–2016
> > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to
> > > which
> > > > > > board
> > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
> > > question
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good night!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dj
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234