Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Board of Trustees Board noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the Board of Trustees' noticeboard. This is a message board for discussing issues related to Wikimedia Foundation governance and policies, and related Board work. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page and sign them.
  • For details of the Board's role and processes, see the Board Handbook.
  • Threads older than 90 days will be automatically archived by ArchiverBot.

Agenda for the June 2018 WMF Board meeting[edit]

First, thank you for publishing Wikimedia Foundation board agenda 2018-06 further in advance of the Board meeting than has been the practice in the past. I hope that Board agendas will consistently be published at least two weeks in advance of Board meetings.

Second, and less happily, someone appears to be prognosticating for the Board about what it will do at the meeting. There should be no guarantee that "The Board will approve the Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19"; what is more likely is that the Board will consider approving the Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19. Revising the AP before approving it, tabling the approval until a future meeting, and rejecting the AP are all options that the Board has. Similarly, there should be no guarantee that the Board will "approve a donation for Fiscal Year 2017-18" to the Endowment. What is more likely is that the Board will consider approving a donation for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to the Endowment. I would encourage the Board and staff to be more cautious about forecasting what the Board will do.

Thanks, --Pine 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Because no one has responded to my concerns regarding the formulation of the Board's meeting agenda, and a disturbing length of time has passed, I am pinging Schiste. --Pine 01:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is anyone from the Board monitoring this page? My comment from June should have been easy to address, and the lack of response makes me think that there are deeper problems here than mishandling of the Board agenda. I am now pinging the Board sercretary, User:EHershenov (WMF), to ask for a response to my original concern and an explanation about the lack of response so far. --Pine 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Raystorm: okay, I agree that the July agenda indeed looks like an improvement over the June agenda. Why did over two months pass before anyone from the Board or staff responded to this thread? --Pine 19:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

License changes[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to kill the GFDL. The first battle on Commons has been won, but the war isn't over.

I've started a poll on nlwiki. The gist of it: third parties can take our content, build upon it using only the GFDL (without Creative Commons) and we can't import those improvements back into Wikipedia. So I asked if there would be support for dropping the GFDL for new contributions.

In less than a day we have 8 supporters (myself included) and 5 opposers. The opposers include two opposers (2, 5) who merely oppose the format of a poll instead of a discussion thread (a poll was just more practical, also, it's not a vote), one who misunderstood that third parties don't have to adopt both licenses (1), one case of whataboutism (3) and finally one (4) who thinks you should have already tackled this problem globally.

I won't argue with (4) that perhaps you should have and in the light of being able to translate articles from other wikis, it would be the most practical to kill the GFDL everywhere at once. Although this is mainly an issue for enwiki where most articles are imported from.

Which means I have two questions for you:

  1. How/where should we have an official vote to drop the GFDL on nlwiki? Can we just have the vote on nlwiki, or does it have to be on meta? Anything else I should know?
  2. Can you help me to kill the GFDL on all wiki projects? Face-devil-grin.svg

Best regards, Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, I would think nlwiki would serve, just like Commons had the vote locally. I think the Licensing update set us up for that direction - Commons going for it is pretty major, and could serve as a template for other communities to kickstart their own discussions. As for the second question - a big challenge we face is upgrading all the projects' copyright licenses from Creative Commons 3.0 to Creative Commons 4.0, which is a pretty major undertaking itself. I wonder if that would not be the time to bring this up. Face-wink.svg Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sister projects ignored in reports to the WMF board[edit]

mw:Wikimedia Audiences metrics in the July 2018 meeting

I'm astonished that the statistics presented to the board are so unashamedly discriminatory against Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata. It doesn't take any effort to include all projects in content statistics. --Nemo 08:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The next slide in the report User:Nemo_bis shows total traffic for all sites together. Agree more details on the other projects would be nice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)