[Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

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

[Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

James Salsman-2
I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
like to have a more substantive discussion:

(1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
or unpublished drafts of planning materials.

(2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
at length for additional participation (e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
people use off-list emails instead?

Best regards,
Jim

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Jim

You ask that "the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria" -- what would you, or the public at large, do with
that information?

JPS
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

James Salsman-2
Jennifer, I would like to comment on the search and requirement
criteria. In particular, I'd like to know whether the Foundation is
interested in reinforcing their privacy infrastructure, and whether
that is more or less important than being able to provide personally
identifiable information to the several researchers worldwide under
nondisclosure agreements. And whether some kind of a fuzzing middle
ground is interesting to the Foundation? I'd like to know whether the
Foundation wants to stay with PHP long term, or explore alternatives
before deciding whether they do. What is our technical strategy to
combat censorship in Turkey and China? Are we ever going to support
IPFS with more than just dumps? What is the status of the
Encrypted-SNI project and how many headcount do we think we need and
what kind of budget is there for it?

I'd like to know what kind of commitment the Foundation wants to open
source hardware, e.g. www.opencompute.org servers, or if we're just
going to stay with closed source proprietary technology forever? I'd
like to know what the technology goals are. Plenty of Foundation
technology projects look like they are close to wrapping up or have
already transitioned into support mode. Is the Community Wishlist the
sole source of new technology efforts? What is the future of the Tool
Labs? Are any of the tools that have fallen into disrepair (e.g.,
Categorder which sorts the WP:BACKLOG categories by pageviews on
enwiki) ever going to be fixed? Is Wikiversity going to get a Course
Management System? Is Wiktionary going to get a pronunciation tutor?

What is the Foundation looking for in a CTO to address these issues?
How are they looking for them? Is there a short list? Will the
community get a chance to comment on the candidates? Who is performing
the search? What criteria are they using? How much money is being
offered? Are we competitive with other top-ten website CTO
compensation? Is the Foundation still committed to paying competitive
SF-livable salaries for all employees? I would love to know any of
this far more than anything about branding.

Best regards,
Jim

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:55 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Jim
>
> You ask that "the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria" -- what would you, or the public at large, do with
> that information?
>
> JPS
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
questions.

(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
because that's where we're at....)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
>
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>
> (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> at length for additional participation (e.g.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
> honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> people use off-list emails instead?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".

These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:

   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
   our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
   - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists

There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> questions.
>
> (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
> lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> because that's where we're at....)
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> >
> > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> >
> > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
> > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > people use off-list emails instead?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Dan Garry (Deskana)
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for your sense of superiority..


It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
this is not the correct way to address it.

Dan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Dan Garry (Deskana)
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 21:09, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
>
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>

Much of this is contained the job description
<https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/1612312?gh_src=26fdae1b1>,
which is posted publicly on the Wikimedia Foundation website
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/jobs/>.

Is there something specific you think is missing?

Dan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Dan Garry (Deskana)
Hoi,
Fine. Obviously we disagree on what we read in the same text. Now what
would be the "correct way" to address a perceived sense of superiority ?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 11:24, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for your sense of superiority..
>
>
> It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
> Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
> this is not the correct way to address it.
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hi Gerard,


> So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
>

Well, there is a list of about 90 scoping questions from the movement
strategy process. Many of these questions in fact overlap or are
alternative ways of asking the same thing, but still there are plenty! :)

In particular, your questions about avoiding Anglo-American bias relates to
questions 3, 4 and 5 from the Diversity working group (1), and question 9
from Roles and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be anything from
Product & Technology along similar lines (though one could ask why not)

It would be absolutely great if there was as much thoughtful discussion of
these really broad issues as there has been about the proposal to basically
change one letter in the Wikimedia Foundation's name. The reason there
hasn't been is because big, broad issues are difficult to engage with,
while specific issues are easier to engage with. That's not a criticism,
more an invitation for more people to invest the time and energy to engage
with the big issue questions as well.

Chris

(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Diversity
(2)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities



> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> > questions.
> >
> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
> email
> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> > because that's where we're at....)
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> > >
> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> > >
> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > > people use off-list emails instead?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Joseph Seddon-4
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the
WMF.

WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two
years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on
Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and
Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost
working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does
not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an
almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy
team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have
been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal
which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit.

The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country
and native language year on year.

What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia
and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and
build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to
design for non-English wiki's and apply to English.

More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
> to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".
>
> These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:
>
>    - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
>    - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
>    our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
>    - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists
>
> There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
> with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> > questions.
> >
> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
> email
> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> > because that's where we're at....)
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> > >
> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> > >
> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > > people use off-list emails instead?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Joseph Seddon-4
** correction - New readers (audiences and global partnerships) are working
in North Africa, Middle East, South America and India at the moment.



On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:15 PM Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the
> WMF.
>
> WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two
> years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on
> Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and
> Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost
> working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does
> not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an
> almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy
> team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have
> been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal
> which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit.
>
> The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country
> and native language year on year.
>
> What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia
> and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and
> build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to
> design for non-English wiki's and apply to English.
>
> More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing.
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
>> to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".
>>
>> These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:
>>
>>    - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
>>    - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in
>> Wikipedia,
>>    our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
>>    - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists
>>
>> There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
>> with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
>> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
>> Thanks,
>>       GerardM
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
>> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
>> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
>> > questions.
>> >
>> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
>> email
>> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
>> > because that's where we're at....)
>> >
>> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
>> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
>> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
>> > >
>> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
>> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
>> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
>> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>> > >
>> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several
>> people
>> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
>> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
>> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
>> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
>> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
>> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
>> > > people use off-list emails instead?
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Jim
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > 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 and
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > 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 and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Jim


>  I would like to comment on the search and requirement
> criteria. In particular, I'd like to know [...] I would love to know any of
> this far more than anything about branding.
>

Yes, but what would you *do* with the answers to all those questions?
You're not on the search committee, so it seems that what you want is for
the WMF to answer questions from the 36 million or so account holders, and
get 36 million comments.   That's useless to them and to us.  I think what
you really mean is that you want (1) for yourself as opposed to the
movement in general to be personally involved in the decision-making
process, probably so that you can (2) promote your pet notions about
privacy, back-doors in hardware and other opinons.  Perhaps you should try
standing for election to a community seat on the Board?

JPS
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

James Salsman-2
Jennifer,

> I think what you really mean is that you want (1) for yourself as
> opposed to the movement in general to be personally involved in
> the decision-making process,

I would be happy if the Foundation was doing anything to involve
the community in the process. We are constantly told to get involved,
but if the search process isn't open, how are we supposed to?

> so that you can (2) promote your pet notions about privacy,
> back-doors in hardware and other opinons.

I plead guilty, I want privacy and all the other questions I raised to be
part of the CTO search process, but they are hardly my pet notions,
and again, I'd gladly abstain if the community was made part of this
process. There was one item on the list you could call my pet, since it
has been the source of 98% of my income for the past eight years, but
it wasn't either of the two you guessed. Here is enumerated list, in
hopes that this makes it easier.

Is the Foundation looking for a CTO who can help:

(1) reinforcing their privacy infrastructure;

(2) moving away from providing personally identifiable information
to the dozens of researchers worldwide under nondisclosure agreements;

(3) finding a fuzzing middle ground to provide approximate but non-
personally identyding readership log information;

(4) explore alternatives to staying with PHP long term;

(5) build a strategy to combat censorship in Turkey and China;

(6) support IPFS with more than just dumps;

(7) execute on the industry-wide Encrypted-SNI project with devoted
headcount and budget;

(8) commit to open source hardware, e.g. www.opencompute.org servers;

(9) ramp up Community Wishlist implementation as long term
Foundation technology supporters wrap up or transition to support mode;

(10) fix tools that have fallen into disrepair (e.g., Categorder which sorts
the WP:BACKLOG categories by pageviews on enwiki)

(11) produce a Course Management System for Wikiversity;

(12) produce a pronunciation tutor for Wiktionary;

(13) remain competitive with other top-ten website compensation by
paying SF-livable salaries;

and what search criteria are they using to find candidates that can?

Best regards,
Jim

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:33 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Jim
>
>
> >  I would like to comment on the search and requirement
> > criteria. In particular, I'd like to know [...] I would love to know any of
> > this far more than anything about branding.
> >
>
> Yes, but what would you *do* with the answers to all those questions?
> You're not on the search committee, so it seems that what you want is for
> the WMF to answer questions from the 36 million or so account holders, and
> get 36 million comments.   That's useless to them and to us.  I think what
> you really mean is that you want (1) for yourself as opposed to the
> movement in general to be personally involved in the decision-making
> process, probably so that you can (2) promote your pet notions about
> privacy, back-doors in hardware and other opinons.  Perhaps you should try
> standing for election to a community seat on the Board?
>
> JPS
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>