Talk:Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network

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

Unaffiliated[edit]

@Pharos: Is this open for unaffiliated volunteers to observe/follow along? I'm curious about people's views on the listed topics. (I fully understand if the answer is no — it's specifically an affiliates meeting, after all — but I figure it can't hurt to ask.) (Also, if it is closed to outside viewers, will there be public notes taken?) --Yair rand (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it will be an open meeting like last time, but we may have an executive session for affiliates only during the latter part.--Pharos (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Movement Strategy Support Team[edit]

Hi @Pharos: Would it be ok for me to join this event (in particular, the call at 19.00 UTC), either for the whole time or partially as the organizers prefer? The purpose would be to hear from folks how best we can create the transition process and to answer any related questions. Thank you. -MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@MPourzaki (WMF): Thanks, would be glad to have you join! We have a fairly full agenda of things beyond the transition process per se, perhaps you could join us, explain and take questions for the first 15 minutes or so?--Pharos (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks Pharos. Happy to be there for the first 15 mins. See you on Sunday. -MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Brand Project team[edit]

Hi @Pharos: Respecting the first part of the agenda, Essie Zar and I wanted to ask if it would be helpful for us join part of the meetings. We would plan to listen and to take on questions, as we did during the previous All-Affiliates hours. Let us know! Thanks! - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ZMcCune (WMF): Sure, we'd be glad to have you. Maybe you could also take 15 minutes like User:MPourzaki (WMF)? Perhaps actually it would make more sense in terms of the agenda if Branding came before Movement Strategy. Might be best if each team would like to give a w:lightning talk-style brief update, and then spend the rest of their time on questions.--Pharos (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Cheers @Pharos: we will be there. Brand Project update can be even shorter- maybe 5 minutes of details and 5 minutes for questions. Want to honor the agenda! - 76.21.47.40 02:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like I got logged out. Claiming the above Talk page comment as Zack McCune. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Correct link to the meeting[edit]

Is this the 19:00 correct link? I'm waiting for someone to let me in, but nothing happens. --Camelia (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, my error for the time: is 21:00 and not 17:00 as CEST. --Camelia (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Call starts in 30 minutes[edit]

The 19:00 UTC call starts in 30 minutes from now.--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose next SWAN meeting for September 13 or 20[edit]

After much interest expressed on the recent call about making this a monthly event, I'd like to propose the next SWAN meeting for September 13 or 20, before the next WMF board meeting. This would follow the same timeframe as before, being two sessions on the same Sunday to accomodate a diversity of time zones.

Either September 13 or 20 would work equally well for me, though I have a slight preference for the earlier date. Which Sunday date would you prefer, and are there any factors that would favor one or the other?--Pharos (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pharos, are there minutes of the meetings anywhere? I couldn't find them. Thank you! notafish }<';> 11:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Pharos, the copy I have is in the first session (Asia Pacific zone friendly). Kindky share us the second (Americas/Euro zone) session as well. 00:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Pharos, Either September 13 or 20 both work fine for me, though I have a request can the timing be one hour earlier, in place of 19:00 UTC, make it 18:00 UTC. Rajeeb (talk) 19:00, 04 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Pharos, the first meeting was quite interesting, thanks for organising it! September 20 would work better for me (and it is still before the Wikimedia Foundation board meeting) --アンタナナ 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, let's do September 20 then, it will be great to have more opportunities to interact with Wikimedia Foundation board members. I'll also cobble together a more useful summary of the August meeting from our imperfect notes.--Pharos (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with September 20th. --Camelia (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

September 20 SWAN meeting[edit]

A reminder that our next meeting with be Sunday September 20, sign-up and details on the front side of this page.--Pharos (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can we ask the participants who proposed agenda items to be more specific when describing the proposed topics? Ideally, our agenda should follow this advice. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to answer this, because your request is kind of non-specific itself. Anyone is free to add agenda items, or to suggest particular modifications to them. By default, most agenda items will I think be of the nature of a general discussion on that topic.--Pharos (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi @Pharos: checking to see if it would be ok for me to join this month's meeting. I see it as a great opportunity to discuss the preparation events. Like last time, I can always join for a specific part and then roll off. PS, information for the preparation event is ready: preparation events page plus one-page PDF. We also have a one-page overview of the entire transition process. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Reminder: The next session starts in 20 minutes from now.--Pharos (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Scope question[edit]

@Pharos: Hi. I hope you're doing well. I'm wondering if presenting/discussing the taxonomy of knowledge gap work is in scope for one of the upcoming meetings of this group. For context: we have started this project inspired by the 2030 strategy and the need for systematically measuring the knowledge gaps across the projects. I would love to have a chance to talk more with the affiliates about this project. However, no hard feelings if this venue is not the right place for it. In that case, I'd appreciate if you point me to a better place if you know it. Thanks! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds great to me, FWIW. Thanks for the offer.... ★NealMcB★ (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@LZia (WMF): Sounds good to me as well, probably we should pursue it in an October meeting if there is some room in the agenda.--Pharos (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nealmcb:@Pharos: thanks for welcoming this and letting me know. Pharos, the October meeting works well. Please let me know what I should do on my end to make this happen. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pharos: I see the agenda for the October meeting is now settled. Shall I keep an eye for an opportunity in the November meeting? Please let me know if I can do something to make this easier for you. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Develop content for each meeting starting in its own subpage?[edit]

Content from the first meeting was moved to a subpage Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network/2020 08. This destroys the connection between the pages and their history pages. Offhand it seems better to start developing content for each meeting in its own subpage, and thus move content for the 2020 09 page now. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite possibly, had been thinking to keep most of the new stuff on a widely-watchlisted page and then archive after each meeting, but each approach has its advantages..--Pharos (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Platform for notes[edit]

I find it a bit awkward that notes are taken in a platform that is not open. Can etherpad be used instead? Ainali talkcontributions 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ainali Maybe you can help me :). Where can we find notes from these meetings? Thank you! notafish }<';> 06:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since it's a Google doc I believe Fuzheado need to invite you (which is partly my point). Ainali talkcontributions 18:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Fuzheado Can this document be made public? Thank you! notafish }<';> 06:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Movement Strategy - What Are Your Choices For Implementation[edit]

Hello SWAN friends,

We've been in touch already, leaving this call here nonetheless for information dissemination.

The time has come to put Strategy into work and everyone's invited to participate.

The Movement Strategy Design Group and Support Team are inviting you to organize virtual meetings with your community and colleagues before the end of October. The aim is for you to decide what ideas from the Movement Strategy recommendations respond to your needs and will have an impact in the movement. The recommendations are available in different formats and in many languages. There are 10 awesome recommendations and close to 50 recommended changes and actions or initiatives. Not everything will be implemented. The aim of prioritization is to create an 18-month implementation plan to take some of the initiatives forward starting in 2021.

Prioritization is at the level of your group, affiliate, and community. Think local and relevant! Regional and thematic platforms are great ways to prepare and share ideas. Afterwards, we will come together in November to co-create the implementation plan. More information about November’s global events will be shared soon. For now and until the end of October, organize locally and share your priorities with us.

You can find guidance for the events, the simple reporting template, and other supporting materials here on Meta. You can share your results directly on Meta, by email, or by filling out this survey. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions or comments, strategy2030(_AT_)wikimedia.org

We will be hosting office hours to answer any questions you might have, Thursday October 1 at 14.00 UTC (Google Meet).

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Art+Feminism UCoC Summary and Survey[edit]

Hi, All! Art+Feminism has created a summary of the WMF UCoC draft and talk page on English Wikipedia. Our aim is to help reduce some of the labor around the reading of the discussion page, but readers are encouraged to read the original material for a complete overview.

We think our community generally supports having this Universal Code of Conduct, but either has had poor experiences engaging in talk pages on Meta OR doesn’t have pointed feedback to add to this draft. Is that correct? Do you support the UCoC? Let us know by 10/5.

Regrettably, due to time and resources, our summary and form is currently only available in English. Please complete the form in whatever language you're most comfortable with and we encourage folx to review the draft and discussion pages in your primary language. --Kiraface (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Propose next SWAN meeting for October 18 or 25[edit]

I'd like to propose the next SWAN meeting for October 18 or 25. This would follow the same timeframe as before, being two sessions on the same Sunday to accomodate a diversity of time zones. We'll also follow up and ensure that the minutes from September's meeting are posted in a Meta-friendly way by sometime next week.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The next SWAN meeting will be Sunday October 25, in the customary two sessions at 300 UTC and 1900 UTC.--Pharos (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! –SJ talk  18:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The second and final session of the weekend will begin in 25 minutes.--Pharos (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose next SWAN meeting for November 29[edit]

I'd like to propose the next SWAN meeting for November 29. This would follow the same timeframe as before, being two sessions on the same Sunday to accomodate a diversity of time zones. This would put us in the weekend in-between the two planned Wikimedia 2030 Global Conversations.--Pharos (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the two session times next weekend on November 29 will be 03:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC - note that the UTC times are the same as before, although a number of places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting.--Pharos (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to partake without beeing exploited by Google? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
SWAN is a zero-budget operation. And unfortunately, Wikimedia Meet is not yet technicaly capable of hosting such a large meeting. To preserve maximum privacy, I suggest you create a throwaway account for this purpose and not use it for anything else.--Pharos (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ˑ I will attend on sunday. Is 19hoo the correct time for Paris/Geneva? I get lost with the time zones ( I unformtunately agree with Sänger' s remark, we are open source and stand for a more opened internet so we should try to avoid the lighthouse ǃ But I know it is challenging when google is so massively present every where.Nattes à chat (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: No, 19:00 UTC is 20:00 Paris time. Clicking on the zonestamp link here can also help you find the right local time anywhere in the world.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"means which are considered acceptable"[edit]

The about page states "SWAN can use any means which are considered acceptable within the Wikimedia Movement: online or in person meetings, discussion pages, RfC’s, open letters....". All our projects run strictly on Free and Open Source Software and the choice to do so is based on our ideology. Would SWAN do the same, or does opinions differ on what is acceptable? Ainali talkcontributions 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

not my ideology. please provide acceptable solutions. Slowking4 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
sorry but not quite factual as projects use all kind of software (on client side at least). I would agree this should be something to strive for at the core of the 'movement' and where resources are available...SWAN is not that right now. Zblace (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
? To the best of my knowledge, all front-end code on the projects is open-source. I'm pretty sure it's required. --Yair rand (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
as we know, the open source communication tools suck. expanding the FOSS purity test from wikicode to all other software we may happen to touch, is not reasonable. and in general not done by the community: for example, on wikisource, open OCR is not as good as google OCR, and the indic languages are growing because of google OCR use. and the interesting conversations are happening on FB, youtube, twitter, slack, telegram, and twitch, not irc., or talk. but by all means, continue to grief any "non-open" software use, the people getting the mission done, will give it all the consideration it deserves. Slowking4 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all of that is false. --Yair rand (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
facts are what they are: you mean the facts are contrary to your strongly held ideology. to the extent, other editors do not share your ideology, you will not be able to convince them what is acceptable, by claims of "falsehood". Slowking4 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Folks, could I ask that we bring down the temperature a bit on the debate. It is true we use a variety of platforms for our work, on wiki and off. The "acceptable within the Wikimedia Movement" is probably the point that is best addressed, but in forums beyond the scope of this talk page. Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion is to simply remove that sentence. It doesn't seem to add any guidance to what SWAN should do since there isn't really a good definition to what is acceptable or not. Or does it add any value beyond that which I fail to see? Ainali talkcontributions 21:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Global Conversations continue on Dec. 5 & 6[edit]

Hola, こんにちは, Ciao, Hello, سلام, Halo, Salut, 你好, Nnọọ, হ্যালো, Hallo, สวัสดี, Dzień dobry, வணக்கம், приветствие, שלום, Mholo, हैलो, γεια, Ahoj, ഹലോ, 여보세요, مرحبا, Բարեւ Ձեզ, Olá, Xin chào, Hallå, ಹಲೋ, Sawubona, Здраво, Merhaba, Talofa, హలో

Global Conversations Dec. 5 & 6

Hello friends. 250 people participated in virtual Global Conversations that took place on November 21 and 22. The conversation continues on December 5 and 6 and we warmly invite you to take part. Registration is open until December 4. Looking forward to seeing you.

Since September, many groups have shared their local, regional, and thematic priorities for implementing the Movement Strategy recommendations. During the first set of Global Conversations on Nov. 21 and 22, we focused on initiatives that should be globally prioritized and coordinated. We invite you to read the selected global priorities. What do you like about them? What is missing? And what would make you want to play an active role in implementation? Share your thoughts in advance and continue the conversation on December 5 and 6.

Looking forward to seeing you again or for the first time on December 5 and 6.

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Project redesign December 2020[edit]

introducing a navigation template for this project

I am writing to propose a project redesign which uses a navigation template to help visitors access various features and information here. I expect that what I am proposing is non-controversial, but I want to present what I have and talk it through. I plan to implement these designs soon. Even after implemented, this is wiki, and anyone else is welcome to change things, including pushing back the redesign in entirety if somehow there is a problem.

where things are now and what would change

Currently this project is mostly on one page. Here is how it looks right now:

The problem is that this project has more content and activity options than can fit on one page, and there is not currently a plan to make these options accessible. The typical wiki solution to this is to apply a navigation template which users can use to find options.

the proposed change

I made such a template and set up at at

See it in use in a pilot case at Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network/about. I propose to put this template on the pages to which that template links, with the exception of the talk page which by wiki custom does not also get navigation templates.

usability

I set up the navigation template to divide this project into these five parts:

I am imagining that the "about" page will be mostly static, although anyone could update or develop it. We should expect that users will sign the "join" page for as long as this project is active, but it otherwise may not change except to record a membership list. The "reports" page will grow to include a link to notes for every meeting and any other position statements which this project produces. Finally I propose to have one talk page for all project activities, instead of a possible alternative of having a talk page for each monthly meeting or report.

All of this is a proposal. This is a system that I have tested at the Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network and I feel that it works. If anyone wants to change it then feel free, but I propose this as an improvement on the status quo of just one page.

art and appearance
a swan
a signpost, one of the art choices

This project is called "Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network" or SWAN, and a en:swan is a bird which swims in ponds. I wanted to have some art to make this project more recognizable so I collected some icons with a theme of "camping near a pond with swans". Swans live on the edge of urban centers and so camping near them is more peaceful than deep wilderness camping. So I have these icons and this theme. If anyone wants different art then feel free to change it out. To me, the art and the usability are unrelated decisions. Anyone could change the art without changing the usability and vice versa.

thanks for your consideration

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a fun and positive aesthetic direction to me, and I welcome it. I would only suggest that we think about making this a bit more compact on the screen, perhaps by adopting a horizontal orientation.--Pharos (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pharos: Here is the model I have for a horizontal orientation.
d:Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT
If we go with this, we have one logo without the set of navigation icons. The "usability" format stays the same, with the same navigation scheme to subpages. I could set up this horizontal version if you or anyone else make the call to choose. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Next SWAN meeting for January 10[edit]

Rather than hold a late-December meeting, the plan is to hold the next SWAN meeting on January 10, in the space after the holidays but before Wikipedia 20. This meeting would follow the same timeframe as before, being two sessions on the same Sunday to accomodate a diversity of time zones.--Pharos (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Our second and larger call begins in about 1 hour from now.--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SWAN Telegram group[edit]

There now also is a SWAN Telegram group (SWAN public chat) for users involved with Wikimedia movement affiliates - or users otherwise interested - to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process and other movementwide issues. You can join via this invite. SRientjes (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

SWAN Interim Governing Council pre-call feedback[edit]

To start the exchange of ideas on the IGC early, and to help prepare before the SWAN calls, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this etherpad. If you like a more interactive way of discussing, we have also made a jamboard. Check here for more details.

--Pharos (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Money 🤑 Interim Global Council 💰 request for WMF transparency[edit]

@KVaidla (WMF): At the January 2021 online SWAN meeting Wikimedia Foundation representative Kaarel Vaidla, Lead Movement Process Architect, Office of the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, presented the Wikimedia Foundation's plan for the development of the Interim Global Council. I asked for information -

  1. How much money is the WMF allocating in total for the development of the Interim Global Council
  2. Divide that money into two categories, WMF-spent money versus money entirely in control of the Wiki community

Kaarel committed to report back in print before the February 2021 SWAN meeting. An acceptable report is, for example, "The Wikimedia Foundation has a total budget of US$1,000,000 for this. Of this money, a minimum of 10% or US$100,000 will be entirely in community control through the usual processes including grants and stipends to organizations and individuals." A short statement like this is the best for communicating the situation. If you want to go further, then focus on explaining where and how the WMF puts money into the control of the Wiki Community, like for example, "US$20,000 went to these grants for participation in South America, here is the list of items totaling US$20,000 which the WMF funded in Africa, etc...".

As a general rule, the Wikimedia Community requests WMF transparency in financial reporting for all WMF / Wikimedia community collaborations, especially the divide between WMF budget decisions and those which the Wikimedia Community made freely itself. If anything is unclear about this request then just ask. Thanks for your willingness to speak to this.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted notices of this request at
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

SWAN discussed Interim Global Council[edit]

During the Swan calls on January 10, the participants discussed the Interim Global Council.

In particular they focussed on four questions:

  1. Should the IGC focus only on the Movement Charter, and not on Strategy implementation?
  2. Should members of the IGC be appointed rather than elected? (This only applies to the interim GC!)
  3. Should the IGC develop only a minimal Movement Charter which will be expanded in the future by the formal Global Council?
  4. Should members of the IGC receive stipends (financial compensation) when needed, so they can afford to invest time?

You can find the outcomes of a Jamboard exercise here.

One general comment made during the calls: it is very difficult to come up with an answer to these questions when so much about the IGC is still unknown. Who will appoint the iGC? How long is it supposed to exist? How (and by who) will the IGC output (such as the Movement Charter) be endorsed or ratified?

Overall outcome:

  1. The development of the Movement Charter is by many seen to be the most important task of the IGC, more important than overseeing strategy implementation.
  2. The overall line of thinking appeared to be that if the IGC is intended to exist for a considerable period of time, representatives should be elected by the community and/or affiliates to ensure legitimacy. An important point was also who would appoint the members of the IGC.
  3. There appeared to be a preference for developing a full Movement Charter, and not a minimal version. A useful first step could be to develop a concise document that lists generally accepted principles of governance, before the IGC is established.
  4. Opinions were divided on whether IGC members should receive financial compensation.

Sandra Rientjes (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for Feedback: Community-and-Affiliate Board Seats[edit]

Hi there! The WMF starts a Call for Feedback about community-and-affiliated seat selection processes, resulting from the recent approval of bylaws amendments. This call for feedback is going to start on Monday Feb 1 and will run until March 14.

Full details will be published on Monday at Call for Feedback:Community Board Seats. Discuss on the Talk page for general comments. Translated pages welcome discussions in multiple languages. If you are a user of Telegram, you can receive updates in the announcement Telegram group or join the discussion in this discussion Telegram group.

Furthermore we are organizing three different office hour sessions (for different time zones) on Tuesday, Feb 2 (see Call for Feedback:Community Board Seats). There we will introduce the call for feedback and will be available for any questions and comments.

We are looking for a broad representation of opinions. We welcome conversations in any language and in any channel. If you want us to organize a conversation or a meeting for your wiki project or your affiliate, please contact us. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)