IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-03-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

[6:29pm] eia joined the chat room.
[6:29pm] Ziko: hello folks
[6:29pm] Carbidfischer joined the chat room.
[6:30pm] Carbidfischer: hi everyone
[6:30pm] Rock_drum joined the chat room.
[6:30pm] sgardner joined the chat room.
[6:30pm] aude2: hey
[6:30pm] Philippe: Hi everyone
[6:30pm] Seth_Finkelstein joined the chat room.
[6:30pm] Moonriddengirl: Hi. (Someday, I'll get a cloak that properly identifies me as Maggie Dennis.)
[6:30pm] guerillero: heya
[6:31pm] Philippe: Sue is here, but she's getting ready
[6:31pm] guerillero: lol
[6:31pm] sgardner: Hey guerillero -- are you the editor who helped me on the weekend?
[6:31pm] sgardner: Hello everybody
[6:31pm] guerillero: I am
[6:31pm] Seth_Finkelstein: Hello, Ms. Executive Director
[6:31pm] sgardner: Oh yay! Thank you -- that was fun
[6:31pm] ldavis joined the chat room.
[6:32pm] tommorris: hey sgardner
[6:32pm] sgardner: I do want to say that I am not a chicklit reader, nor a particular fan of Laura Zigman's novels, although I have casually read two of them.
[6:32pm] sgardner: (I produced an interview with her once.)
[6:32pm] nischayn22_ joined the chat room.
[6:32pm] sgardner: I just saw a need
[6:32pm] tommorris: sgardner: congrats on your recent article creation.
[6:32pm] sgardner: hey tommorris; how are you?
[6:32pm] tommorris: not bad
[6:32pm] sgardner: Did you like my emo article? That was my other weekend project
[6:32pm] rosablinkeinhorn joined the chat room.
[6:32pm] tommorris: sgardner: yeah, I might sneak it into my blog
[6:32pm] Philippe: That's a sentence never before constructed, I bet.
[6:32pm] sgardner: I fear it is a little too newsy, but I guess it'll settle out over time
[6:33pm] Philippe: "did you like my emo article..."
[6:33pm] sgardner:
[6:33pm] guerillero: heyy
[6:33pm] sgardner: Folks just FYI: I am trying to load up some useful links on meta for the purposes of this IRC, but either the office wireless connection is slow or meta is slow, so I may end up a little impaired in terms of linking to things.
[6:33pm] • varnent pokes head in
[6:34pm] sgardner: Hello varnent
[6:34pm] eia: meta has been slow here for days
[6:34pm] eia: so nothing new
[6:34pm] eia:
[6:34pm] varnent: sgardner: greetings Sue!
[6:34pm] sgardner: Really -- I hadn't noticed that. Some of my edits there have been slow lately, but I thought that was just massive pages.....
[6:34pm] sgardner: (eia)
[6:34pm] Philippe: Sue's going to type up a bit of an opneing paragraph for us (some thoughts), and then we'll go with any questions.
[6:34pm] sgardner: Okay!
[6:35pm] sgardner: So I don't really have an opening paragraph, although I will now make up one
[6:35pm] tommorris: have we got a topic or is it a free-for-all ask-Sue-anything?
[6:35pm] Philippe: tommorris, it'll be free for all, but after she does her opening.
[6:35pm] eia: free-for-all-but-keep-it-bloodfree
[6:35pm] eia:
[6:35pm] Theo10011: Hello good people.
[6:35pm] Philippe: (obvs, preferably directly related to her work, but if you really WANT to know her favorite type of puppy that's okay.)
[6:35pm] Moonriddengirl: Hello, Theo10011.
[6:35pm] sgardner: I haven't done office hours for more than a month, I think, so we may have a backlog of things to talk about. Why don't we start by just tossing out topic areas, and then once we know what ground we want to cover, then Philippe can help us structure the time so we go calmly from topic to topic?
[6:35pm] Theo10011: Did anyone spam the other channels?
[6:35pm] eia: Philippe: good one!
[6:35pm] Theo10011: Hiya Maggie.
[6:35pm] sgardner: Hey Theo
[6:36pm] Carbidfischer: hi Theo10011
[6:36pm] freakofmimsy: hi all
[6:36pm] Philippe: Theo10011: no
[6:36pm] Theo10011: Hello
[6:36pm] Theo10011: should I?
[6:36pm] Philippe: fine
[6:36pm] Philippe:
[6:36pm] tommorris: Err, which my eagle-eyed friend Rock_drum spotted earlier
[6:36pm] eia: sgardner: the most pressing issue: which of the employees' dogs is your favorite?
[6:36pm] Sir48 joined the chat room.
[6:36pm] sgardner: Why don't folks just toss out topic ideas for a while
[6:36pm] YairRand joined the chat room.
[6:36pm] Rock_drum: eia: The one in the laptop bag?
[6:36pm] FooBarMartijn: tommorris, dude
[6:36pm] Moonriddengirl: I think tommorris wants to talk about
[6:36pm] gmaxwell joined the chat room.
[6:36pm] FooBarMartijn: you're way angry
[6:36pm] huhhh joined the chat room.
[6:36pm] Carbidfischer: sgardner: what happened to the good ol’ image filter? any new developments?
[6:36pm] Seth_Finkelstein: one topic - the switch from Goddaddy to MarkMonitor
[6:36pm] sgardner: I just realized eia is Lodewijk -- hiya Lodewijk
[6:37pm] SpeakFree joined the chat room.
[6:37pm] eia: hiya
[6:37pm] sgardner: I will be silent for a while and just wait for topics, now
[6:37pm] huhhh is now known as PiRSquared.
[6:37pm] TBloemink joined the chat room.
[6:37pm] tommorris: FooBarMartijn: Only about stupid shit.
[6:37pm] Philippe: Four topics so far: shop., image filter, and employee dogs, and Godaddy
[6:37pm] eia: (I bed the dog gave me away...)
[6:37pm] Seth_Finkelstein: Per
[6:37pm] Theo10011: Someone should voice Sue.
[6:37pm] Theo10011: Pb^
[6:37pm] FooBarMartijn: as long as you're not that angry all the time. That would be exhausting
[6:37pm] tommorris: oh yeah, and there's the half year review
[6:37pm] Moonriddengirl: eia, Sue has never met my bichon frise but would surely choose him if she did. He's darling.
[6:37pm] Ziko: the recommendations, philippe
[6:37pm] Philippe: Theo10011: yes thank you
[6:38pm] Philippe: Five topics, thank you, Ziko
[6:38pm] Philippe: Six, to Tom
[6:38pm] • aude2 reminds everyone to submit your wikimania talk this week
[6:38pm] aude2: deadline is sunday
[6:38pm] Theo10011: ah I should do that.
[6:38pm] eia: Philippe: I'd like to add reimbursement policy - just a quick simple question where it is located
[6:39pm] guerillero: how do I convince my boss to let me off work that week
[6:39pm] Philippe: eia, is that a question taht I can handle by IM?
[6:39pm] Philippe: If not, we'll add it
[6:39pm] eia: sure
[6:39pm] tommorris: "We need to get much better at ignoring trolls", so sayeth the Mid-Year Review.
[6:39pm] Jamesofur joined the chat room.
[6:39pm] guerillero: James
[6:39pm] varnent: would be curious if Sue has any additional thoughts, that haven't already been said elsewhere, on the board's new associate/outside entity recognition model (which I'm a big fan of btw)
[6:39pm] Fumitol joined the chat room.
[6:39pm] sgardner was granted voice by ChanServ.
[6:39pm] freakofmimsy: Let's talk about India as well.
[6:39pm] You were promoted to operator by ChanServ.
[6:40pm] Jamesofur: hey guerillero
[6:40pm] apergos joined the chat room.
[6:40pm] Philippe: In order to figure out what people are most interested in, can we ask if there are "seconds" for those topics… for instance, are there several people who want to talk bout shop.wikimedia?
[6:40pm] guerillero: If we are tossing out topics, then what does she think of the education program as it stands now
[6:40pm] sgardner: Thanks Philippe. So if someone has raised a topic that's particularly interesting to you -- please second it.
[6:40pm] Narodnik: If we're still taking questions; is the Foundation committed to maintaining/increasing the current number of community liaisons? [in question as they are contractor positions]
[6:41pm] Rock_drum: Philippe: It'd be interesting to know if there are plans for non-WP merchandise.
[6:41pm] Jamesofur: Rock_drum: I have some already ordered and some in planning
[6:41pm] Narodnik: second GoDaddy, recommendations, image filter
[6:41pm] sgardner: here are the topics I've currently captured
[6:41pm] sgardner: shop
[6:41pm] sgardner: image filter
[6:41pm] sgardner: employee dogs
[6:41pm] sgardner: markmonitor and godaddy
[6:41pm] sgardner: half-year review
[6:41pm] sgardner: fundraising
[6:41pm] sgardner: reimbursement policy
[6:41pm] Miss_Manzana joined the chat room.
[6:41pm] sgardner: movement roles
[6:41pm] sgardner: india
[6:41pm] tommorris: Jamesofur: Wikinews reporters hats.
[6:41pm] sgardner: education program
[6:41pm] sgardner: community liaision positions
[6:41pm] sgardner: so, you can second any of those
[6:41pm] sgardner: Or, create new topics
[6:41pm] Narodnik: second movement roles also
[6:41pm] Miss_Manzana: Hello, sgardner
[6:41pm] • Jan_eissfeldt supports the Narodnik order
[6:41pm] FooBarMartijn: second filter, markmonitor, fundraising
[6:41pm] YairRand: (what is "shop"?)
[6:41pm] sgardner: Hi Miss_Manzana
[6:42pm] tommorris: YairRand:
[6:42pm] varnent: actually, I'd also be curious what Sue thinks what the foundation's role is or should become in setting the proper community tone for volunteers - this has come up recently with talk of code of conduct policy now adopted for MW developer gatherings and listserv discussions of volunteer conduct, behavior, etc. intervention - does she have any thoughts on if WMF should help set a tone or call attn to best models for volunte
[6:42pm] varnent: etc. or does she think they should remain totally hands-off and allow volunteers to sort it out themselves?
[6:42pm] varnent: lol - sorry - really long question
[6:42pm] tommorris: oh yeah, another possible topic: the proposals to split foundation-l
[6:42pm] sikob joined the chat room.
[6:42pm] sgardner: So why don't we start with movement roles, since it got the first seconder. And meanwhile people can continue to second other topics, or create new topics. Philippe will capture
[6:43pm] Philippe: OK, so we have enough topics for a month of office hours. But I'll capture, as Sue says
[6:43pm] GerardM-: only one question about ... will it be available in other languages ?
[6:43pm] Theo10011: heh
[6:43pm] sgardner: So on movement roles: I think the question was basically, what do I think about the Movement Roles proposal to have the Wikimedia movement endorse new forms of affiliation with the Wikimedia movement.
[6:43pm] Torsten joined the chat room.
[6:43pm] Philippe: GerardM-: Why don't you ask Jalexander about those questions? You can do by IM maybe?
[6:43pm] sgardner: Which, IIRC correctly, includes "chapters," "partner organizations," "affiliates" and "associations."
[6:44pm] Theo10011: I always wondered are we geared to support a 100 of these organizations?
[6:44pm] Theo10011: The 38 so far don't have it easy.
[6:44pm] tommorris: so, chapters seems pretty obvious. but things get interesting when it comes to partners. Creative Commons might want to partner, but what happens when Conservapedia wants to partner with Wikimedia?
[6:44pm] Theo10011: in a lot of ways.
[6:45pm] guerillero: lol
[6:45pm] guerillero: that would end poorly
[6:45pm] FooBarMartijn: what? Ed Poorly?
[6:45pm] sgardner: We all know what chapters are. Partner organizations as I understand it is intended to refer to organizations that would be formally constructed as non-profit entities, but not (like the chapters) geography-based. Meaning their sphere of responsibility would not be a geographical one. Affiliates I believe refers to likeminded organizations that are not primarily Wikimedia-centred -- so, like Open Street Maps or Creative Commons. And associati
[6:45pm] sgardner: ons would be casual, informal organizations like McGill University Wikipedians.
[6:45pm] Pharos joined the chat room.
[6:45pm] Ziko: tommorris: you mean CC wants to be "association", according to the presented terminology
[6:45pm] mpeel joined the chat room.
[6:46pm] tommorris: Ziko: I haven't kept track of the terminology
[6:46pm] Beria joined the chat room.
[6:46pm] sgardner: I have not personally been involved much with Movement Roles, and honestly I have not paid very close attention to it. Barry has been involved though, and he has kept me generally in the loop, as has Sam and other Board members who were involved.
[6:46pm] sgardner: In general, I really like the recommendation to expand the types of organizations that we recognize.
[6:46pm] Theo10011: hiya Pharos mpeed
[6:46pm] Theo10011: mpeel too
[6:46pm] wing2 joined the chat room.
[6:47pm] James_F: Hey Ting.
[6:47pm] Jamesofur is now known as Jalexander.
[6:47pm] Ziko: (sorry tommorris, I mean "affiliates")
[6:47pm] Pavel_WMDEE joined the chat room.
[6:47pm] sgardner: I like it because I think the great strength of the movement is that if people raise their hands and want to help, their help is welcome. And I think different types of work lend themselves to different types of structures.
[6:47pm] Ziko: i think that the four categories presented are a good idea - tricky will be the practice, in order to exclude some troublemakers from the beginning
[6:48pm] freakofmimsy: Do you think that the likelihood of conflicts arising between geography-based entities and these new associations will also increase?
[6:48pm] guerillero: thats why there needs to be an approval process
[6:48pm] Matthew joined the chat room.
[6:48pm] Theo10011: guerillero, It's going to be identical to the chapters afaik
[6:48pm] Jalexander: (if anyone else has shop questions feel free to PM me or email jalexander@wikimedia )
[6:48pm] sgardner: I know that for example Mozilla has had great success recognizing fairly informal campus associations, and I have long wanted us to do the same. So I think that the ability to recognize non-geography-based organizations, formally acknowledge our friends such as OSM, and formally acknowledge small groups that want to help (but that don't want to become formal organizations, such as officially-registered non-profits) -- I think all that is good
[6:48pm] sgardner: , and will expand the Wikimedia ecosystem.
[6:49pm] Matthew is now known as Guest34729.
[6:49pm] • guerillero nods
[6:49pm] aude2: sgardner: it's OpenStreetMap
[6:49pm] aude2: and more specifically the OpenStreetMap Foundation
[6:49pm] Nemo_bis: OSM are already official partners of some chapters
[6:49pm] Nemo_bis: WMIT almost became an OSM chapter as well
[6:49pm] James_F: WMRS /is/ CCRS.
[6:50pm] aude2: our chapter does OSM mapping parties and works with OSM US chapter
[6:50pm] James_F: Or was?
[6:50pm] tommorris: sgardner: but isn't there going to be political issues? I mean, if there's an approval process for affiliate groups, what criteria are the Foundation going to use?
[6:50pm] sgardner: freakofmimsy: I think there probably is potential for conflict. But I think the upside --a bigger universe, more help, more support, more people active in the movement-- outweighs the downside of needing to resolve conflicts where conflicts crop up. I think that there will probably not be lots of conflict.
[6:50pm] MatthewRoth joined the chat room.
[6:50pm] sgardner: Nemo_bis -- yes, that's good
[6:50pm] geniice left the chat room. (Quit: ChatZilla [SeaMonkey 2.7.2/20120216055339])
[6:50pm] tommorris: What happens if, say, varnent's WikiQueer wants to become affiliated with Wikimedia, and then crazy homophobic bigots start objecting and threatening not to fund Wikipedia? that's where I'm concerned is that affiliation gets into political stuff
[6:51pm] FooBarMartijn: Just to get the terminology straight when we're talking about OSM, that would be an 'affilicate' right?
[6:51pm] guerillero: but people know we are kinda sorta liberal
[6:51pm] freakofmimsy: I think we all agree that the objectives sound great, but practice appears to be a completely different domain. Even if the entities are not outrightly hostile - if new associations are set on an equal platform, communication and collaboration will be adversely affected.
[6:51pm] sgardner: tommorris: I think that the Chapters Committee is starting to work through those issues right now -- about criteria. My understanding is that the Chapters Committee is aiming to reinvent itself as the Affiliations Committee, and that kind of question will be in their purview.
[6:51pm] Seth_Finkelstein: Well, there might be a Public Relations oriented wiki which wants to be partner
[6:51pm] FooBarMartijn: not a 'partner'
[6:51pm] geniice joined the chat room.
[6:51pm] aude2: FooBarMartijn: i'd see OSM as a partner and they'd see it that way i think
[6:52pm] tommorris: and same with, say, Conservapedia, or if there were free culture groups specifically focussing on certain areas -- like, maybe, a religious history group
[6:52pm] Pavel_WMDEE: are we talking only about the WMF approving such groups / organisation, or chapters as well?
[6:52pm] YairRand: what are the benefits of formally recognizing orginizations as "affiliates"?
[6:52pm] • aude2 does both OSM + Wikipedia
[6:52pm] sgardner: Does varnent have a thing called "WikiQueer"? I think things like that would be fine. Just like there are wikiprojects of all kinds.
[6:52pm] Ziko: [spam alert] I blogged on the terminology:
[6:52pm] guerillero: yes
[6:52pm] eia: sgardner: the chapcom will mainly be about implementation I think
[6:52pm] • Narodnik seconds YairRand's question
[6:52pm] eia: not so much making the decision on the grand ideas
[6:52pm] sgardner: As long as organizations live inside our policies and practices, they are fine.
[6:52pm] James_F: Pavel_WMDEE> Not WMF, but AfCom, possibly alongside the new Chapters Council/whatever.
[6:52pm] freakofmimsy: Pavel_WMDEE, I think chapter-approval would be a much better way of going about it and reducing conflict.
[6:52pm] FooBarMartijn: Ziko, thanks
[6:52pm] Theo10011: sgardner, he brought it up on Foundation-l recently. Some issue or something.
[6:52pm] • Theo10011 ponders
[6:52pm] guest____ joined the chat room.
[6:52pm] sgardner: eia: you are still on the ChapCom, right? You've just been renewed?
[6:52pm] eia: yes, I am
[6:52pm] nischayn22 joined the chat room.
[6:53pm] sgardner: eia: Ah, good.
[6:53pm] Philippe: Sue is catching up with the questions we have so far, I hear furious typing
[6:54pm] Pavel_WMDEE: mh, why would one global entity (be it chapcom or WMF) be in the best position to approve a group in say, south africa. I would think that the people on the ground would have more insight into who they are and what they are doing?
[6:54pm] varnent: sgardner: indeed my org does - and I'll admit that tommorris is right - we'd be interested in becoming an affiliate - but to be fair - I wouldn't honestly object to Conservapedia being one either - they use the MW software effectively - and while I don't personally like anything related to their project - I recognize their right to exist and their views
[6:54pm] Theo10011: James_F, is "whatever" going to approve such groups too?
[6:54pm] Theo10011: I did not know that.
[6:54pm] James_F: Theo10011> It's been mentioned as a possibility.
[6:54pm] sgardner: Pavel, I think it is expected to work the same way the chapters process works. So the Affiliation Committee (formerly ChapCom) would do the research, vetting, negotiation, and then recommend to the Wikimedia Foundation when something is ready to move forward. The Wikimedia Foundation would officially bestow upon the groups e.g., use of the trademarks, following recommendation to do that, from the Affiliation Committee. That's my understanding.
[6:55pm] tommorris: varnent: it's not so much whether WQ or CP would become affiliates that concerns me, it's what is the reward for either becoming an affiliate compared to the crazy madshit that might happen politically when people throw a temper tantrum about it
[6:55pm] Theo10011: I guess you've been following the council and MR close than I have.
[6:55pm] tommorris: what happens when BoyWiki, the pro-paedophilia wiki, wants to become an affiliate?
[6:55pm] eia: Pavel_WMDEE: I agree this becomes more tricky the more types of groups we get - and the consultation with the local existing structures also becomes more important part of the process probably
[6:56pm] Theo10011: tommorris, some of these scenarios are getting ridiculous
[6:56pm] sgardner: I think BoyWiki (if that's actually a thing that exists) would be unlikely to be approved by anyone.
[6:56pm] Theo10011: there will be a weeding process, no one is going to stamp organizations instantly.
[6:56pm] tommorris: sgardner: it exists, and it is linked to from frwiki
[6:56pm] Raymond_ joined the chat room.
[6:56pm] Theo10011: It is probably illegal to begin with.
[6:56pm] Nemo_bis: then your definition is probably not NPOV
[6:56pm] sgardner: Does anyone else have other questions on MR, or does anyone else want to share information about Movement Roles?
[6:57pm] sgardner: (There are some other folks here who have been, or are, involved -- Theo, eia.)
[6:57pm] Theo10011: Nothing new to comment sgardner.
[6:57pm] sgardner: Okay
[6:57pm] Theo10011: I did like the post about the article you worked on.
[6:57pm] FooBarMartijn: I still don't get how an affiliate organisation would benefit the WMF and the other way round any better than a less formal mutual endorsement, but I'll leave it at it, and read mailinglists harder
[6:58pm] Pavel_WMDEE: sgardner: I understand the process; but my question is: why is that the best way to do it? it makes sense for entities such as chapters, but once there is a local chapter, I would try to enable them to make these decissions. what do we gain by having the WMF approve local groups, not chapters?
[6:58pm] varnent: tommorris: I'll concede it's a very fair question - I think given BoyWiki promotes illegal behavior there's an easy red-flag there. I'll also concede that there will be vocal folks that hate CP and WQ - but I would be very curious to see what impact that actually has. My experience in working with hundreds of coalitions of a wide group of conflicting orgs with one odd issue in common is that while a vocal minority huff
[6:58pm] varnent: puff - they were rarely major donors and what I'd call valuable volunteers (quantity vs. quality of attitude is big in my opinion) - and in major donor markets - cooperation and coalition thinking is often rewarded by donors
[6:58pm] Theo10011: sgardner, I was thinking of a collaboration of the month the staff and chapters can do.
[6:58pm] sgardner: FooBarMartijn: you may be right. I do not know if any likeminded organizations will ever approach us to become affiliated with Wikimedia. Maybe they won't.
[6:59pm] Rcsprinter joined the chat room.
[6:59pm] Nemo_bis: beware that this conversation is logged, try to avoid possible libel
[6:59pm] YairRand: approving topic wikis probably isn't a good idea. for wikis, if we are to have a system for affiliation, acceptance should be limited basically to those that we wouldn't really have minded being wm projects if we'd thought of it first, in my opinion
[6:59pm] sgardner: if they don't, no harm done. But the door will be open, if anyone wants to walk through it.
[6:59pm] Ziko: if there is an international organization, such as OSM, it would be WMF to 'adopt' it, but if there is such an org. only actice in NL, it would make more sence to decentralize that...
[6:59pm] James_F: varnent> Of course, QueerWiki promotes illegal behaviour by the standards of Uganda, but we'd be totally open to QW joining; so it's the ever-present "where does one draw the line" question.
[6:59pm] Miss_Manzana left the chat room.
[6:59pm] FooBarMartijn: sgardner, how is the door more closed now? If some organisation comes up and says 'hey, we want to help you out'
[7:00pm] tommorris: FooBarMartijn: I think for some Wikimedia wikis like Wikinews, being able to have an easy way for the WMF to throw their weight behind Wikinews reporters to get things like press accreditation etc.
[7:00pm] FooBarMartijn: we're not exactly saying 'no you can't! Go away!' now, are we?
[7:00pm] Philippe: FooBarMartijn: there's no existing path, at all… so the idea is to create some sort of path toward that type of affiliation.
[7:00pm] • aude2 sure OSM does not want to be 'adopted'
[7:00pm] eia: FooBarMartijn: affiliates you could probably consider as a strong form of endorsement
[7:00pm] varnent: James_F: technically WikiQueer is legal (oddly enough) in's Russia we're now not allowed it..but all of that aside..WMF is legally a US org - so I imagine going by that criteria as a starter makes sense given that's my understanding of what's done for WMF Chapters - if we followed Uganda, Iran and China's laws..I'm not sure what WMF chapters would be left
[7:01pm] eia: (with some extra bonuses)
[7:01pm] FooBarMartijn: the definition eia gives is quite different than what tommorris indicates here
[7:01pm] eia: the other models are more internal - Wikimedians who want to organize themselves
[7:01pm] Philippe: We're half way into the session, and we've covered one of seven topics
[7:01pm] Philippe: Can I suggest that we might want to move on?
[7:01pm] guerillero: sure
[7:01pm] Philippe: Sue is answering pavel
[7:01pm] • varnent second
[7:01pm] sgardner: Pavel: The thing is, i) the majority of countries don't have a chapter, and ii) the new models aren't limited to ones that are geography-based. For example, there could be a non-profit association formed to advance the work that is more related to language than geography, or to a particular form of outreach unlinked to geography. We don't need to see the world primarily through a geographic lens, and the MR recommendation enables us to encour
[7:01pm] sgardner: age other kinds of self-organization, in addition to geography.
[7:01pm] Seth_Finkelstein: FooBarMartijn - that's exactly what did happen with PR
[7:02pm] sgardner: Anyway: like I said, I am not the author of the recommendations, and I wasn't involved in their creation. But I endorse them, for the reasons I gave
[7:02pm] sgardner: What's next, Philippe?
[7:02pm] tommorris: sgardner: not-so-formal chapter-lite organisations sounds like an A* idea to me.
[7:02pm] varnent: sgardner: ty - sorry for the sidetracking
[7:02pm] sgardner:
[7:02pm] Philippe: Let's do Godaddy really quickly...
[7:03pm] tommorris: Huzzah!
[7:03pm] sgardner: So on Go Daddy -- I don't know if everyone saw the blog post, but the Wikimedia Foundation has moved away from Go Daddy: the URLS have moved. This is good news, and I'm happy about it
[7:03pm] YairRand_ joined the chat room.
[7:03pm] apergos: yay!
[7:03pm] Philippe: Seth_Finkelstein: This was your question, i believe?
[7:03pm] guerillero: sounds good
[7:03pm] tommorris: sgardner: domains have changed, the URLs remain the same. Uniformity is a good thing for URLs
[7:03pm] James_F: tommorris> Picky.
[7:03pm] sgardner: I think everyone knows why we did it: we did it because they initially endorsed SOPA, and also because frankly to me they have always seemed like a bad brand fit.
[7:03pm] sgardner: tommorris: yes
[7:04pm] • Philippe rolls eyes at tommorris
[7:04pm] Seth_Finkelstein: Yes - was move to MarkMonitor under consideration BEFORE the SOPA ruckus?
[7:04pm] guestboy joined the chat room.
[7:04pm] sgardner: Seth: we had been loosely considering moving away from GoDaddy for a while. I didn't love them, ever. But SOPA definitely hastened the change.
[7:05pm] tommorris: I think for a lot of smaller sites, SOPA was the final straw that forced them to end an otherwise unhappy relationship with GoDaddy.
[7:05pm] guest____ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:05pm] Guest34729 left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:05pm] YairRand left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:05pm] sgardner: We had previously been using MarkMonitor for some brand protection stuff so yes, I assume Legal had them on the list as a possible GoDaddy replacement. But after we made the decision to move away from GoDaddy, Legal investigated a number of replacement possibilities for us, and we settled on markMonitor because they seemed best suited to meet our needs.
[7:05pm] Seth_Finkelstein: What will happen if MarkMonitor endorses SOPA-next?
[7:05pm] sgardner: tommorris: yes.
[7:05pm] nischayn22_ left the chat room. (Quit: Leaving)
[7:06pm] sgardner: I don't believe that MarkMonitor will endorse SOPA. They know it's an important issue for us.
[7:06pm] Theo10011: I saw Domas posted something about MarkMonitor on Foundation-l
[7:06pm] Seth_Finkelstein:
[7:06pm] Theo10011: Anyone look into that. I wasn't following.
[7:06pm] Philippe: Theo10011: There was some discussion about that on Foundation-l. He's generally supportive.
[7:07pm] Philippe: Lets go on, shall we?
[7:07pm] Seth_Finkelstein: How much business does WMF give MarkMonitor then, if you think that'll affect their endorsement?
[7:07pm] Philippe: Fundraising.....
[7:07pm] Theo10011: ok
[7:07pm] Philippe: Seth_Finkelstein: I know that Geoff would likely be abe to answer that question more speciically.
[7:07pm] Philippe: You might email him
[7:08pm] Seth_Finkelstein: Right, but he's not doing the IRC.
[7:08pm] Philippe: He will be doing one shortly… we're pinning down a date, or his email works
[7:08pm] sgardner: Just quickly for Seth: I don't think it's necessarily a question of us giving them tons of business. I think it's more that they realize it's a really important issue for us (obviously, since we moved from GoDaddy because of it). they want to keep our business, and they know this issue matters.
[7:08pm] sgardner: Okay -- fundraising?
[7:08pm] sgardner: Shall I recap where we're at?
[7:08pm] guerillero: sure
[7:09pm] Seth_Finkelstein: @sgardner - OK, won't push it now.
[7:10pm] sgardner: So -- in January, the Board asked me to make it recommendations on fundraising and funds dissemination. I had been talking about the issue for months in multiple forums beforehand, and in January I posted draft recommendations on meta, which the Board discussed at its February meeting. In February (a few weeks later) a large group of chapters and Foundation people met in Paris to continue discussions, and this past Saturday I finalized my rec
[7:10pm] sgardner: ommendations and gave them to the Board.
[7:10pm] sgardner: To recap them fast:
[7:10pm] akapoor joined the chat room.
[7:11pm] tommorris: Seth_Finkelstein: just to give you an idea, the Foundation have at least 60 domains (including misspellings of wikipedia etc.) - so work out how much MarkMonitor are charging per domain, multiply that by 60, multiply it a bit more for extra services and domains we don't know about and whatever other services they are providing
[7:12pm] sgardner: The first and most important recommendation is kind of a preamble/precursor to the rest: I want to acknowledge and affirm that the money that comes into the Wikimedia movement is movement money. It's given to us by donors because they value the projects, and they value the projects because of the work of editors. So as a starting point: I wanted to clearly say that the money belongs to the movement, not to any particular organization. Organiz
[7:12pm] sgardner: ations hold it in trust, on behalf of editors.
[7:12pm] Theo10011_a joined the chat room.
[7:12pm] Philippe: (money that comes into the Wikimedia movement through the projects/sites, yes?)
[7:13pm] sgardner: Because of that, I am recommending that the Wikimedia Foundation construct a funds dissemination committee (FDC) made up primarily of volunteers, that will be responsible for disseminating funds to all manner of movement entities -- this would include chapters and individual volunteers. basically, to disseminate funds globally, in a way that serves the interests of the movement overall.
[7:13pm] abartov__ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:13pm] aude2: sgardner: and WMF?
[7:14pm] Theo10011 left the chat room. (Disconnected by services)
[7:14pm] aude2: non-core operations? or what?
[7:14pm] Theo10011_a is now known as Theo10011.
[7:14pm] gmaxwell: Philippe: Even when the money doesn't come in _via_ the sites it usually comes in _because_ of the sites. So I think the distinction you were drawing there isn't that useful.
[7:14pm] Theo10011 left the chat room. (Changing host)
[7:14pm] Theo10011 joined the chat room.
[7:14pm] sgardner: I am also recommending that part of the Wikimedia Foundation budget also be disseminated by the FDC -- anything that is "non-core." In my recommendations, core WMF funding would continue to be approved solely by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees.
[7:14pm] filthykerp joined the chat room.
[7:14pm] sgardner: This is, I believe, a significant and important change.
[7:14pm] aude2: sgardner: what do you consider core?
[7:14pm] aude2: obviously the servers
[7:15pm] filthykerp: sgardner: question: what do you think about the leak of the Wikipedia IRC channels logs?
[7:15pm] sgardner: I think that if we can construct an FDC that is actually reflective of the desires and goals of global Wikimedia volunteers, and is effectively and helpfully supported by the staff: this could be transformative.
[7:15pm] Mlpearc is now known as Mlpearc|Away.
[7:15pm] Theo10011: lol
[7:15pm] Philippe: filthykerp: we have a ton more questions than we can really deal with today, but if you'd like to send by email, please feel free.
[7:15pm] Theo10011: srsly filthykerp?
[7:15pm] filthykerp: Theo10011: srsly.
[7:15pm] Torsten: sgardner the "movement" lacks at the moment any structure to decide about budget plans. And unfortunately WMF, too.
[7:15pm] • aude2 thinks chapters, for example, could have more of a role in mediawiki and other tech development
[7:16pm] aude2: yet it's core, in some ways
[7:16pm] TBloemink left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[7:16pm] sgardner: So, that is my major and most important recommendation. There are a number of sub-recommendations that fit under "creation of the FDC" -- that talk about how it should be constructed, what it should look like, and so forth. I won't go through them all here, but if anyone wants to ask specific questions about them, they should go ahead.
[7:16pm] • Sir48 feels that the foundation/board is on a slippery centralization slope
[7:16pm] Philippe: Link to recommendations;
[7:17pm] Beria: why the FDC don't deal with WMF budget, sgardner ?
[7:17pm] Theo10011: Can 5 volunteers decide on funding for the entire movement- WMF, chapters, partners, wikipedians?
[7:17pm] sgardner: I also made recommendations around fundraising, which are in my opinion somewhat less important in the big picture, but which are still important, and are controversial. I think the FDC recommendation is not tremendously controversial, but my payment processing recommendation is controversial.
[7:17pm] sgardner: Regarding payment processing, I really really struggled to make a good recommendation here.
[7:17pm] sgardner: And so I ended up making two recommendations.
[7:17pm] guerillero: how would these 5 be choosen
[7:17pm] Beria: if a chapter budget can not fill the mission the WMf can equally fall into this?
[7:17pm] Beria: seriously?
[7:17pm] sgardner: I'll recap how that happened.
[7:18pm] Beria: did you saw the talk page sgardner ?
[7:18pm] sgardner: Beria: yes.
[7:18pm] Beria: do you saw people are complaining about pretty much all recomendations?
[7:18pm] You set a ban on *!*@gateway/web/freenode/ip.
[7:18pm] You kicked filthykerp from the chat room. (filthykerp)
[7:19pm] Beria: and mostly about the fact you didn't change anything, only the wording - after months of discussions?
[7:19pm] Torsten: sgardner: to decide about budget is one of the most challenging role in any organisation. Could the new movement body first try some simpler tasks to see if the process axtually can work?
[7:19pm] aschmidt: Beria: good point
[7:19pm] freakofmimsy: I would rather have multiple organizations as custodians of the movement money rather than one or two organizations payment processing. it creates undue dependence on one organization and by definition, the staff. We can all have different views on what is best for the movement or not, and that is why decentralization in fundraising is the way to go.
[7:20pm] sgardner: So WRT payment processing. It's my belief that payment-processing should be centralized, and handled solely by the Wikimedia Foundation. Currently it is handled mainly by the Wikimedia Foundation, and I think it would be simplest and most straightforward if the Wikimedia Foundation handled all payment-processing. There are about a dozen reasons I believe that -- I won't enumerate them all here, but they are all on the wiki pages, and I've sai
[7:20pm] sgardner: d them in multiple forums over the past year or two.
[7:20pm] sgardner: However.
[7:20pm] Ziko: i wondered about the payment process recommendation
[7:20pm] omtsh joined the chat room.
[7:21pm] c-moll joined the chat room.
[7:21pm] Sharpie joined the chat room.
[7:21pm] Beria: so, you say you believe only WMF should fundraise and them write a recomendation that YOU should say if a chapter should fundraise?
[7:21pm] Beria: that isn't a bit strange (to not use other word)
[7:21pm] Carbidfischer left the chat room.
[7:21pm] Ziko: what is the exact argument for a moratorium of three years before the next chapters can be involved in the payment process?
[7:22pm] Beria: so if we all kn ow your opinion, how do we would expect you to allow anyone to fundraisng
[7:22pm] Philippe: Sue's going to finish her recap, please...
[7:22pm] Philippe: and then take questions.
[7:22pm] sgardner: Lots of chapters people disagree with me, and believe that some or all chapters should payment-process if they want to. Those people have made lots of arguments on the wikis, aiming to rebut my arguments. I think that I am correct: that payment processing should be centralized. But simultaneously: I respect the people who have engaged on this issue, and I respect that the argument is not black-and-white: it is very nuanced. And so I have made
[7:22pm] sgardner: two recommendations to the Board -- one, that the WMF handle all payment-processing, and an alternative, which essentially says that we continue more-or-less as we are for the time being, with the WMF doing the majority of the payment-processing, but with some chapters also payment-processing, and that we revisit the overall issue in 2015.
[7:22pm] Pine joined the chat room.
[7:22pm] tommorris: sgardner: what about local needs? Wikimedia UK gets a chunk of its money through direct debits. that's a bank agreement someone sets up to donate a certain amount each month or quarter or year or whatever. would centralising payment processing mean that Wikimedia UK couldn't build up its own organic and stable income through things like direct debit?
[7:22pm] Rcsprinter left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[7:23pm] • tommorris doesn't speak for Wikimedia UK.
[7:23pm] sgardner: That's where we're at. I made the second alternative recommendation because I want to respect the views of other people and players, because I believe they are sincerely held and not without merit.
[7:23pm] tommorris: but mpeel: thoughts?
[7:23pm] sgardner: That's my recap: now I will read what folks have said while I've been typing
[7:23pm] Beria: sgardner, the second recomendation says that YOU should decde if a chapter can or can't fundraise
[7:23pm] eia: sue: could you perhaps explain (here or on wiki) why you want to fix the number of chapters that are allowed to payment process?
[7:23pm] Philippe: OK, so there's a ton of questions… give her a sec to read
[7:23pm] eia: whether it is at zero or four
[7:23pm] sgardner: eia: yes. I will answer your question first, and then I'll start going backwards and reading the others.
[7:23pm] freakofmimsy: and tax deductions for donors, I think that's the single-most important issue around payment processing, the local chapters can do that, WMF cannot.
[7:25pm] abartov__ joined the chat room.
[7:25pm] sgardner: (Sorry: I was briefly distracted by a man offering me lemons from his lemon tree. I'm back and will start writing again now
[7:25pm] Ironholds: sgardner: oh, you've met fabrice
[7:25pm] abartov__ is now known as abartov.
[7:25pm] Philippe: Another sentence never before constructed
[7:25pm] abartov left the chat room. (Changing host)
[7:25pm] abartov joined the chat room.
[7:25pm] Ironholds: he told me the lemon he gave me was the last one he had. Cheeky sod.
[7:26pm] Sharpie: i love lemons
[7:26pm] Philippe: Never trust a man bearing lemons
[7:27pm] pleclown joined the chat room.
[7:27pm] Beria: lemons aside, i'm waiting for the answers
[7:27pm] Philippe: Beria, she's typing
[7:27pm] Sir48: in Denmark, I have never been distracted by a man offering lemons off his tree
[7:27pm] Frakir joined the chat room.
[7:28pm] sgardner: I want to fix the number of chapters for the time being, because I believe that making changes all the time to who can payment-process is destructive and debilitating to everyone. It takes time to learn how to payment-process well, to build payment-processing infrastructure, and so forth. I think that when the Wikimedia Foundation first started approving chapters to payment-process, we (and the chapters) underestimated what a serious undertak
[7:28pm] sgardner: ing it is, and I think we should have approached it with greater intentionality. I also think that tempers are high on the issue right now, and people could use a cooling-off period. And, uncertainty and change is hard on everyone. So because of all that, I think that a moratorium makes sense for the time being. If chapters are meant to payment-process then it will eventually happen. I think rushing it doesn't serve anyone.
[7:28pm] sgardner: That was a long answer, sorry.
[7:28pm] sgardner: What's the next question?
[7:28pm] sgardner: Sir48: California is quite lovely
[7:29pm] Sir48:
[7:29pm] sgardner: (As is Denmark, of course
[7:29pm] sgardner: I am catching up reading now.
[7:29pm] Narodnik: no new chapters or no new payment-processing chapters?
[7:30pm] Theo10011: Sue is making lemonade?
[7:30pm] sgardner: Narodnik: No new chapters payment-processing. I am hopeful there will be lots of new chapters
[7:30pm] Narodnik: phew!
[7:30pm] sgardner: Theo: more true than you know
[7:30pm] sgardner: Kidding.
[7:30pm] Theo10011: heh
[7:30pm] sgardner: I am gonna answer Beria's question now
[7:30pm] Pavel_WMDEE: by 2015, the WMF will have set up the infrastructure to fundraise internationaly, for example in india. it will be very hard to switch back to fundraising chapters once that happens
[7:30pm] Philippe: Recapping a previous question: Sue, given your positions on the process of payment processing, and that you opened the discussion, can chapters assume that you're a good and neutral person to make the determination which should payment process?
[7:30pm] Beria: Thanks to the Lord!
[7:30pm] Ziko: a moratorium of three years... in this internet age, three years are a very long time.
[7:30pm] SteveSleep joined the chat room.
[7:30pm] SteveSleep: What am I missing?
[7:31pm] Beria: a lot SteveSleep
[7:31pm] sgardner: Okay -- so I am answering Beria's question, which I think is 'why should I (Sue) make the determination for who should payment process'
[7:31pm] sgardner: Here's the answer.
[7:31pm] freakofmimsy: great question, pavel_WMDEE
[7:31pm] freakofmimsy: *observation
[7:31pm] Pavel_WMDEE: freakofmimsy: not a question, just an observation
[7:31pm] • SteveSleep shrugs
[7:31pm] freakofmimsy: yep
[7:31pm] tommorris: sgardner: if the changes go ahead, is Wikimedia UK going to have to write to all the donors and tell them we are no longer interested in taking a monthly direct debit?
[7:32pm] Beria: tommorris, i assume that since this isn't made thought WMF sites, you don't need to
[7:32pm] freakofmimsy: pavel_wmdee, it will also guarantee that consultant-led programs will continue in those countries, instead of wrapping up after a specific objective has been accomplished (or not).
[7:32pm] tommorris: Beria: a lot of them started as a result of fundraising
[7:33pm] jorm left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:33pm] James_F: Beria> But it's trading on WMF's assets (their trademarks)...
[7:33pm] lyzzy joined the chat room.
[7:33pm] Beria: as far as I read from Sue, fundraising outside the gates of CentralNotice is fair game
[7:33pm] Philippe: she's still typing
[7:33pm] delphine joined the chat room.
[7:33pm] Beria: only need to fulfill the legal requirement
[7:34pm] pill_ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[7:34pm] tommorris: and by *we* I mean that in the "not speaking as anything other than an interested observer who happens to be a Wikimedia UK member" rather than actually speaking for Wikimedia UK
[7:34pm] • tommorris tries not to think about chapter politics if possible
[7:34pm] sgardner: These decisions are extremely complex. Basically, there are multiple factors to be considered --such as, does the chapter have the necessary infrastructure and financial controls in place, is the chapter in compliance with the fundraising agreement and with locals laws and regulations, is there enough money coming in from that geography to warrant localized payment-processing, is the chapter able to offer incentives or benefits to donors that
[7:34pm] sgardner: the Wikimedia Foundation cannot, can the chapter freely transfer money internationally without serious impediment, and so forth. There are lots of variables to be considered, and the circumstances are constantly changing: the chapter and its capabilities are changing, and in some cases the local context (or our mutual understanding of it) may be changing as well. The staff of the Wikimedia Foundation is resourced to be able to make those det
[7:34pm] sgardner: erminations. The Board of Trustees cannot itself make those determinations: it doesn't have the capacity. Its job is oversight, not digging in and doing that kind of work.
[7:35pm] sgardner: (I'm still typing, hang on.)
[7:35pm] Sharpie: has the position of chief operating officier been taken?
[7:35pm] Sir48: the chief payment processing officer position is open
[7:36pm] multichill joined the chat room.
[7:36pm] sgardner: So. I have clearly stated my preference, which is that the Wikimedia Foundation do all the payment-processing for donations given through the projects. But I respect the alternative position: I see its merit. If my Board prefers that we have an asymmetrical system, in which some chapters also payment process, I will respect that and I will walk that talk. (I hope that phrase 'walk that talk' makes sense to everyone.)
[7:36pm] Beria: that isn't the problem and isn't my question Sue
[7:37pm] Beria: the board will not say WMXX will fundraise
[7:37pm] Beria: YOU will
[7:37pm] sgardner: Basically, what I'm saying is that I can see the merits of both positions, and I will be comfortable with either one. If the Board wants me to allow some chapters to payment process, I will happily make that happen.
[7:37pm] Beria: that is what written in your recomendations
[7:37pm] sgardner: sorry Beria -- can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're saying.
[7:37pm] freakofmimsy: which may also mean that chapters that hope to fundraise in the future will have to make themselves agreeable to the foundation staff. and I think having this kind of structure will only lead to chapters losing their independence.
[7:37pm] Beria: so if you don't want chapters to fundraise that is a big COI to begin with
[7:37pm] multichill: Ah, I see the fight has started already. Good evening
[7:37pm] BLACK_MALE joined the chat room.
[7:38pm] BLACK_MALE: yes hello id like action taken against the raciat wikimedia irc operators
[7:38pm] You set a ban on *!*@gateway/web/freenode/ip.
[7:38pm] You kicked BLACK_MALE from the chat room. (BLACK_MALE)
[7:38pm] sgardner: It's not a conflict of interest, Beria. I work for the Board of Trustees, and when they give me direction, I follow it. We call it "disagreeing and committing," and I am totally comfortable with it.
[7:38pm] YairRand_: "Recommendation #2: All movement entities will be free to fundraise outside of the Wikimedia project sites..."
[7:38pm] Theo10011: heh
[7:38pm] Philippe: We've got our friend Derp around today
[7:38pm] omtsh: mhm
[7:38pm] Theo10011: prob. not derp.
[7:38pm] Fumitol: Heh
[7:38pm] Beria: "Instead, we ask that going forward, the Executive Director make decisions about whether chapters can payment-process..."
[7:38pm] Theo10011: Don't badmouth derp please.
[7:38pm] omtsh:
[7:38pm] Philippe: We've got a troll around today *
[7:39pm] Beria: you the ED
[7:39pm] freakofmimsy: friend from wichita
[7:39pm] Beria: so you decide who can pp
[7:39pm] sgardner: (And, like I said, I see the merit in the alternative recommendation. That's why I wrote it. If I thought it was entirely without merit I could not have, in good conscience, recommended it to my Board.)
[7:39pm] Tegel joined the chat room.
[7:39pm] Beria: I don't think we are understanding each other Sue.
[7:39pm] Sharpie: sgardner: are you open to donations of bitcoins to wikimedia?
[7:39pm] Pavel_WMDEE: sgardner: just for the record (do we keep records here? :-): you alternative recommandation regarding fundraising is not what chapters have argued for, at least in my understanding
[7:39pm] Philippe: Question from Torsten: sgardner: to decide about budget is one of the most challenging role in any organisation. Could the new movement body first try some simpler tasks to see if the process axtually can work?
[7:39pm] Beria: SOme Enghish native can people tell sue what i'm asking?
[7:40pm] Ziko: sgardner, why did you put in the year 2015
[7:40pm] Beria: please*
[7:40pm] Philippe: If someone wants to try to rephrase Beria's question, that would be great… We're having trouble here.
[7:40pm] sgardner: Pavel: I will answer your question while Philippe recaps other questions from earlier
[7:40pm] Beria: let me try again
[7:40pm] TBloemink joined the chat room.
[7:41pm] Theo10011_a joined the chat room.
[7:41pm] Beria: Due that in your recomendations is written that "...the Executive Director make decisions about whether chapters can payment-process.." and the EP said herself that she don't want any chapter to fundraise, why we would believe any chapter will be granted that right?
[7:41pm] Moonriddengirl: Beria, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that Sue might not be the best person to determine when a chapter should process funds, because you believe that Sue's stance on funds processing predisposes her against any chapter doing so. Is that correct?
[7:41pm] sgardner: Pavel: yes, I think that my alternative recommendation is not exactly what other people have requested. There were multiple other recommendations put forward from different groups -- from the German chapter, from other chapters, from Thomas Dalton, Ibercoop, and others. My alternative recommendation is not exactly what was requested by any of the other groups that wrote recommendations.
[7:41pm] Beria: exactlly
[7:42pm] Beria: thanks Moonriddengirl
[7:42pm] aschmidt: Beria, I think you made your point quite clear. Recommendations are clear, too. Today, sgardner has deviated from her recommendations. So the question is whether the text will be changed accordingly?
[7:42pm] SteveSleep is now known as SteveAway.
[7:42pm] Tegel left the chat room.
[7:42pm] Theo10011 left the chat room. (Disconnected by services)
[7:42pm] Theo10011_a is now known as Theo10011.
[7:42pm] sgardner: My alternative recommendation is an attempt to craft a compromise between what I think is possible and makes sense, what other folks seemed to be arguing for, and what I think the Board of Trustees might find feasible.
[7:42pm] Theo10011 left the chat room. (Changing host)
[7:42pm] Theo10011 joined the chat room.
[7:42pm] Philippe: how do you think she deviated, aschmidt
[7:42pm] omtsh is now known as omtsh[away].
[7:42pm] PierreSelim joined the chat room.
[7:42pm] mpeel: sgardner: why does your alternative recommendation exclude chapters such as WMNL, who have fundraised in the past but were not allowed to this year, from participating in the fundraising again until 2015? Do they somehow not meet the standards that the other chapters do? (not meaning to pick on WMNL here in any way, just using them as an example)
[7:43pm] multichill: sgardner: One of the strategic goals is innovation. Is Wikipedia going to join ? This isn't really a technical question, more the question if the WMF is willing to redirect enough resources.
[7:43pm] aschmidt: Philippe: she said she would comply with what the board of trustees says.
[7:43pm] Philippe: Thanks
[7:43pm] aschmidt: Philippe: whereas beria quoted a passage saying
[7:43pm] aschmidt: Philippe: it was up to her to decide
[7:43pm] harej joined the chat room.
[7:43pm] HaeB left the chat room. (Disconnected by services)
[7:43pm] Moonriddengirl: If I'm reading her response above correctly, Beria, I think Sue believes that the Board is not in position to make the decision and, although she has expressed a different recommendation, respects the alternative view as well and believes she can evaluate the factors without bias.
[7:43pm] sgardner: aschmidt: yes, I am going to comply with what the Board asks me to do. That's not a deviation from the recommendations.
[7:44pm] Philippe: aschmidt - those are recommendations to the board. If the board elects to do something else, she'll do that.
[7:44pm] tommorris: IPv6! Wooo! I want my 30 billion IP addresses or whatever it is I'm due.
[7:44pm] aschmidt: sgardner: Philippe thx
[7:44pm] sgardner: I am going to go back to Aude's question of what is core.
[7:44pm] Sir48: that chapters can not participate in fundraising (except the big ones) is very very deplorable
[7:44pm] sgardner: And I think also, why is core separate from everything else.
[7:44pm] sgardner: Okay?
[7:44pm] Beria: Moonriddengirl, of course she can't. She just said it so.
[7:44pm] Pavel_WMDEE: sgardner: yes
[7:45pm] Philippe: multichill: Erik might be better to answer that, but if you want to drop a question on her talk, Sue can look at it at some point, soon, i hope. We're pretty overloaded and already over time.
[7:45pm] Ziko: maybe i missed the answer, but i would like to know why the moratorium should be full three years
[7:45pm] freakofmimsy: Sir48, not every chapter has the capacity or the track-record. I do think having a good track-record is important. After all, the question is of the trusteeship of donor's money and its use.
[7:45pm] Beria: Sir48, not all big chapters to be fair
[7:45pm] aschmidt: good question, Ziko
[7:45pm] sgardner: So the premise of separating out core from non-core, is that the entire Wikimedia movement wants the projects to contine -- and so the entire Wikimedia movement wants the core costs of operating the projects to be funded as the movement's first priority.
[7:45pm] sgardner: I think that's logical to be assumed.
[7:45pm] Sir48: freakofmimsy, agreed. But why not set som requirements, that need to be met
[7:45pm] Theo10011_a joined the chat room.
[7:45pm] Sharpie left the chat room. (Quit: Lost terminal)
[7:46pm] multichill: Philippe: Did anything else besides money get discussed?
[7:46pm] sgardner: And so, the premise is that core operations will be funded as a first priority, by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees through the annual planning process, and all non-core projects and initiatives will be funded by the FDC.
[7:46pm] Beria: a bunch of things multichill
[7:46pm] Beria: but you're late ;
[7:46pm] aude2: sgardner: what do you define as core?
[7:46pm] Beria: *
[7:46pm] • multichill has to go home anyway
[7:46pm] Philippe: multichill: yes, logs will be up soon
[7:46pm] • aude2 wonders where the line is between core and non-core
[7:47pm] freakofmimsy: Is India operations core, for instance?
[7:47pm] Theo10011_a: heh can someone answer aude2 please
[7:47pm] Philippe: Sue, you have about 10 minutes before your next meeting.
[7:47pm] aude2: and if chapters can have a role or be valuable in core operations?
[7:47pm] Philippe: Theo, she's typing
[7:47pm] Philippe: it takes a second to type
[7:47pm] multichill: aude : If you sleep in a hotel : core. If you sleep in a hostel: Not core.
[7:47pm] freakofmimsy: heh
[7:47pm] delphine: multichill: then it's hardcore
[7:47pm] delphine:
[7:48pm] Theo10011_a: ok, the discussion kept moving on, aude asked like 20 minutes ago.
[7:48pm] Theo10011_a: ohai delphine
[7:48pm] Sir48: sgardner: are you aware of the severe limitations on the ability for a chapter to act when money has to be approved centrally for each initiative?
[7:48pm] Philippe: Theo10011_a: she had just said she was answering that
[7:48pm] sgardner: Core does not mean "the rock-bottom costs of operating the sites if we were in serious financial difficulties." Core means the costs of operating the sites. So bandwidth and servers, but also the Legal team, our communications costs, the costs of governance and management, the costs of software/features development, the costs of fundraising, and so forth.
[7:48pm] Theo10011_a: ah sorry, horrible wifi. Keeps dropping in and out.
[7:48pm] freakofmimsy: use the router we bought at wp10 delhi
[7:49pm] freakofmimsy: sgardner, would something like WMF India program be considered core?
[7:49pm] Beria: as in... all WMF budget is core
[7:49pm] YairRand_: ?? that's "core"? what's not core, then?
[7:49pm] gmaxwell: At one point in time money was just a tool (and only a minor one!) to accomplish our grander goals- to hear the discussion here (especially whats coming from the chapter folks)- it now sounds like money is the goal. I haven't been tracking the political stuff for a long while, but this is kinda shocking to me.
[7:49pm] Theo10011 left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
[7:49pm] Philippe: Sue, recapping a question: Ziko: maybe i missed the answer, but i would like to know why the moratorium should be full three years
[7:49pm] sgardner: A good question is, what is NOT included in "core." Garfield and the rest of the WMF team is working through an answer to that question as we begin our 2012-13 annual planning process. And it's likely, we think, that anything that is time-based (short-term or medium-term) and anything that is not global in nature, will be considered non-core.
[7:49pm] Theo10011_a: gmaxwell, that's what the chapters have been saying. Read the recommendations.
[7:49pm] aude2: sgardner: i think features development is something chapters + volunteers can help, and even fundraising
[7:50pm] mapbeled left the chat room. (Quit: mapbeled)
[7:50pm] Beria: so Brazil and India (and the millions spend there) are core?
[7:50pm] sgardner: Aude: that's true, definitely. But we still need a core development team, and a core fundraising team.
[7:50pm] maplebed joined the chat room.
[7:50pm] sgardner: No, Beria. I would say it's likely that Brazil, India, the US education work, and that type of activity, will be non-core.
[7:50pm] Seth_Finkelstein: @gmaxwell - Well-known evolution of bureaucracy. Not my fight, but obvious.
[7:51pm] Beria: thanks god for that
[7:51pm] maplebed left the chat room. (Remote host closed the connection)
[7:51pm] sgardner: Should I go to Ziko now? Or do we want to talk more about core and non-core?
[7:51pm] aude2: something like the toolserver, for example, has become in some ways core
[7:51pm] Theo10011 joined the chat room.
[7:52pm] aude2: the bots would die!
[7:52pm] aude2: if toolserver dies
[7:52pm] sgardner: gmaxwell: you are right about the money. The interesting thing is that in many organizations, money is how priority is expressed. In our movement, it shouldn't be. Sometimes extraordinary things happen with little money: there isn't a direct correlation, at all. /stating the obvious
[7:52pm] Philippe: OK, folks, I'm sorry, but we need to wrap up in about 3 minutes.
[7:52pm] Beria: not only the bots aude2
[7:52pm] Beria:
[7:53pm] Philippe: Ziko's question will be the last one for this session.
[7:53pm] Philippe: "Ziko: maybe i missed the answer, but i would like to know why the moratorium should be full three years"
[7:53pm] sgardner: So to Ziko's question. Ziko asked why I set the moratorium at three years.
[7:53pm] freakofmimsy: Yes, like some volunteers and I did a photowalk in Ahmedabad for a total cost of $5, which generated 1000 pictures for the commons. Similarly, consultant programs involve flight tickets and nice hotels and do not generate even as much output. That's why discussing money is important.
[7:53pm] YairRand_: random question completely unrelated to the current topic: does the WMF have any plan to eventually move fundraising over to being handled by volunteers/the community, or is the plan to keep it as wmf-handled indefinitely?
[7:54pm] Theo10011_a left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
[7:54pm] Philippe: YairRand_: Perhaps Sue's talk page for that? We're over time.
[7:55pm] • varnent not sure he's ever met a nonprofit consultant who'd characterize where they stay as "nice hotels"
[7:55pm] Fumitol left the chat room. (Quit: Goodbye)
[7:55pm] Ziko: my idea was: what has to happen within 3 years that cannot happen in 1 year, for example
[7:55pm] gmaxwell: freakofmimsy: If you assign $random_value to edits you easly arrive at hundreds of millions of dollars /yr in volunteer effort the cash is only a tiny part of that.
[7:55pm] sgardner: Frankly, I pulled it out of thin air. It could have been two years, or four years. I was essentially just wanting to acknowledge that we are all pretty exhausted by this issue, which has taken a lot of people's time and emotional energy over the past six months or so. I certainly am keenly aware of the opportunity cost to the Wikimedia Foundation: people like me, Geoff and Barry, and to a lesser extent Garfield, Zack, Philippe, Maggie and oth
[7:55pm] sgardner: ers, have spent A LOT of time on this issue. (To Greg Maxwell's point upthread.) I think it is an important issue, but I think it is far from the most important issue we face. And I would like to put it to bed for a while, so we can (all, not just the Wikimedia Foundation staff) focus elsewhere. I would like to see the Board, as well, able to focus on other topics.
[7:55pm] James_F: varnent> I have. But then, my industry is a bit more high-end than WMF to put it mildly.
[7:56pm] sgardner: That's why I set it for three years. It wasn't carefully thought out: I just wanted us to all be able to move on and focus elsewhere for a while.
[7:56pm] varnent: James_F: consultants - absolutely - but nonprofit consultants? lol - not in any sector I consult for
[7:56pm] Theo10011: heh like the filter perhaps.
[7:56pm] Philippe: So with that, folks… that's a wrap…. although Sue s typing so she may have something else to add.
[7:56pm] Philippe: But i'll add the logs to meta.
[7:56pm] James_F: varnent> Governmental Education Strategy consultants. "How to build a university in Abu Dhabi".
[7:57pm] James_F: sgardner> Thank you for your time.
[7:57pm] • Theo10011 oooohs
[7:57pm] sgardner: YairRand: just super-fast to your question. Lots and lots of volunteers are involved int he fundraising today. There are lots of people working on OTRS related to fundraising, there are the people featured in the banners, there are people doing translation and localization. A lot of the work is done by volunteers rather than staff, and that's expected to stay the same -- it won't change/
[7:57pm] Philippe: And thank you all for coming today. As always, the interest showing in this sort of thing is wonderful to see.
[7:57pm] varnent: James_F: fair point - lol - higher education is like psuedo-nonprofit (j/k btw)
[7:57pm] varnent: sgardner: ty
[7:57pm] sgardner: We have meetings in three minutes (me and Philippe) -- we need to run.
[7:58pm] James_F: Bye!
[7:58pm] freakofmimsy: gmaxwell, that's true. Wikipedia is valued between $4-5 billion dollars, but runs on a budget of ~$30m. How that money is spent matters to the volunteers who do the unpaid thankless job. That is why it shouldn't be sidelined as a small issue.
[7:58pm] James_F is now known as James_F|Away.
[7:58pm] aude2: bye!
[7:58pm] sgardner: I wish we could've talked about the image filter (well, I sort of wish it, I guess) -- but I think a lot has been said on foundation-l. It's worth reading Kat's and Phoebe's e-mails there, if you haven't already.
[7:58pm] sgardner: Thanks you so much folks -- fun to talk with you today, even though it was a substance-packed fast-typing session
[7:59pm] freakofmimsy: thanks sgardner.
[7:59pm] sgardner: Thanks everybody
[7:59pm] You left the chat by being disconnected from the server.