Mailing List Archive

On 7/28/06, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > And although you might disagree, I have no reason you are not Hardware
> > Officer either. I know Delphine calls herself "the former" Chapter
> > Officer (and now Chair of LCCom). Danny thinks himself GrO still,
> > Elian resigned, as for other officers, I have no clue.
>
> Right now tech. committee has the authority (even more of that!) than
> I did before.
> I still handle the work of 'hardware officer', but I guess I did that
> before we even invented officers.
> And if you want formal hierarchy, then I guess Brion is our chairman ;-)

/me notes "the bureaucracy and hierarchy of WMF is as complicated as
... some christian denominacions which claim their apostelic
traditions

> > Related to a certain website, I would like to know the exact contact
> > Wikimedia Officers or their successors concerning updates of reports
> > from each field. Is there any latest chart of the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Organisation?
>
> I'm sure those reports might be called quite voluntary - at least I
> did them before to describe our activities (then someone thought it
> was good idea to use them as semi-official documents).

You makes a good note. Let me explain here our situation in general.
Currently _all_ editors of its are voluntary, and I understand
committees' members are too, say, it is mundatory for none of us to
edit / update the website (IIRC the resolution which demanded
periodical reports from committe(s) has been pending, so no binding
for us). It's one pole of our world. The other pole is that it is the
official website of the WMF, and external people, including donors
visits that. And the most of informatiom provided to them on that site
is outdated. We are sustained by those good people but they might know
nothing in details for what they contributed to the Foundation. And as
far as I know, many of them believe they donate for hardware purchase.
It would be good to inform them how their former donations were used.

That is why I think Report on Budget and Hardware purchase, those two
items would be crutial parts of that website. But not only hardware,
but also other activities are matters, as far as the Foundation budget
is spent for those. Or it was done under the name of WMF. Other kinds
of reports are therefore informative and helpful to develop the
Foundation's and consequently our own activities on the projects.

Formerly Quarto provided its readers quarterly reports but it hasn't
been issued since last year. A report twice a year (it's currently
just my personal thought, I need to discuss this idea on Comcom lter)
for example might be easiler to make than quarterly ones, and more
visitor-friendly than webpages not undated through about one year.

>
> > Or we can say "the officers are still in office, unless
> > they resigned"
>
> Or we can say - we have community of nice guys who do stuff. Titles
> are nice, but they're not tags that make us act in some specific
> ways. :)

Yep. And our currently potential problems are, so I presume, 1) there
is no particular community on that [.and perhaps it would be one reason
most of its editors are inactive] and 2) many people who have an
account on that seem to tend to think they need titles or tags alike
to make a significant contributions [.and it makes a sense in some
cases; but personally some people seem to take it too a big deal, as
if even they are disqualified to make a draft for updating. The tag
"Official" might scare them].

> > Um, however, as for Hardware, I think we need to argue with whom and
> > on what a comcom member should talk to get a new update? <g>
>
> We already discussed that, didn't we? :)

So we expect you remember other present and important issues clearly,
including the informally proposed Houserule for Wikimania?

--
Aphaia
aka
Kizu Naoko
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi!

> /me notes "the bureaucracy and hierarchy of WMF is as complicated as
> ... some christian denominacions which claim their apostelic
> traditions

:-) yeah, all that stuff to prove there is no cabal..

> nothing in details for what they contributed to the Foundation. And as
> far as I know, many of them believe they donate for hardware purchase.
> It would be good to inform them how their former donations were used.

Haha, well, the best report for what tech team is doing is that site
is still up. ;-)
All our major hardware purchases (well, other stuff than a meter of
UTP cable)
are shown on meta pages, and reports used to be more of an overview of
problems and visions.

> is spent for those. Or it was done under the name of WMF. Other kinds
> of reports are therefore informative and helpful to develop the
> Foundation's and consequently our own activities on the projects.

I sure agree that it is nice to communicate :) I also believe that
method for that should be part of our common sense :)

Anyway, I think that at least tech stuff is pretty transparent for
those who care.
We're communicating (and always online :) in IRC, there's active
mailing list, our wikis (and logs in them) are public, yadda yadda.
Some guys even read village pump ;-)
If only everyone around would provide that much of information about
activities ;-)

> So we expect you remember other present and important issues clearly,
> including the informally proposed Houserule for Wikimania?

I'm rebellious, surely not following that one. :)

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi,

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Domas Mituzas wrote:

>> nothing in details for what they contributed to the Foundation. And as
>> far as I know, many of them believe they donate for hardware purchase.
>> It would be good to inform them how their former donations were used.
>
> Haha, well, the best report for what tech team is doing is that site is
> still up. ;-) All our major hardware purchases (well, other stuff than a
> meter of UTP cable) are shown on meta pages, and reports used to be more
> of an overview of problems and visions.

Problems and visions : useful things to report on.

We could use a designated reporting setup -- either a person or a
place/schedule -- for each committee and major project, with some
standards tats/report-elements that would help minimize scaling pains.

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>>/me notes "the bureaucracy and hierarchy of WMF is as complicated as
>>... some christian denominacions which claim their apostelic
>>traditions
>
>
> :-) yeah, all that stuff to prove there is no cabal..
>
>
>>nothing in details for what they contributed to the Foundation. And as
>>far as I know, many of them believe they donate for hardware purchase.
>>It would be good to inform them how their former donations were used.
>
>
> Haha, well, the best report for what tech team is doing is that site
> is still up. ;-)
> All our major hardware purchases (well, other stuff than a meter of
> UTP cable)
> are shown on meta pages, and reports used to be more of an overview of
> problems and visions.
>
>
>>is spent for those. Or it was done under the name of WMF. Other kinds
>>of reports are therefore informative and helpful to develop the
>>Foundation's and consequently our own activities on the projects.
>
>
> I sure agree that it is nice to communicate :) I also believe that
> method for that should be part of our common sense :)
>
> Anyway, I think that at least tech stuff is pretty transparent for
> those who care.
> We're communicating (and always online :) in IRC, there's active
> mailing list, our wikis (and logs in them) are public, yadda yadda.
> Some guys even read village pump ;-)
> If only everyone around would provide that much of information about
> activities ;-)
>
>
>>So we expect you remember other present and important issues clearly,
>>including the informally proposed Houserule for Wikimania?
>
>
> I'm rebellious, surely not following that one. :)

I missed a step. What is this Houserule ?

As for hardware purchase reports, they have never been as clear as
today, since precise purchases are detailed and voted in a resolution.
They may all be found on the wikimediafoundation site. Now, just a
thought : if you are a visitor not familiar with this website, I wish
you good luck to find the resolutions :-) They are very much hidden. It
would be nice that someone helps to make them more visible. Perhaps even
putting a [[resolutions]] link in the toolbar.

I would love to see reports of the techco, at least to explain what they
are working on right now. I have no idea if Brad gets feedback on this.

The comcom is providing regular reports to the board. They are sent by
the chair (Michael), though I am unsure if they are written by himself
or by a collective. I do not think these reports (or part of them) are
public.

The spcom only provided three reports. The first two ones were not
publicly published; They mostly concerned the set up. I published the
third one very recently :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SPC_Report_April-July_2006.
I omitted some parts on purpose :-)

We got one or two reports of the trademark committee. For obvious
reasons, our strategy with regards to brand is not openly published.

ant



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 7/29/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
> >>So we expect you remember other present and important issues clearly,
> >>including the informally proposed Houserule for Wikimania?
> >
> >
> > I'm rebellious, surely not following that one. :)
>
> I missed a step. What is this Houserule ?

ah it's a joke. Danny proposed "R35 for alchol" and certain people
like our Lithuanian friend don't like it.

> As for hardware purchase reports, they have never been as clear as
> today, since precise purchases are detailed and voted in a resolution.
> They may all be found on the wikimediafoundation site. Now, just a
> thought : if you are a visitor not familiar with this website, I wish
> you good luck to find the resolutions :-) They are very much hidden. It
> would be nice that someone helps to make them more visible. Perhaps even
> putting a [[resolutions]] link in the toolbar.

Toolbar is one of improvement needed things definitely. It can be
optimized through MediaWiki:Sidebar only for sysop.

Other potential addition is "policies" -> Privacy policy & Visual
guideline. The latter is hardly found too, I'm afraid.

It is fine to know the Board gets reports steadly. As the nect step,
would the Board be interested in re-releasing some of those reports to
the Foundation wiki or passing to Comcom as potential materials to the
foundation wiki? Since 1) it is suggested some of those reports might
contain things not suitable to be in public, 2) those reports haven't
been passed to Comcom [even by itself, IIRC]. I think we are rather
better to bother the Board in this area.

Delphine permitted me to reuse her reports on early summer European
tour as report from Chapter Com (see my meta talk), but it would be
nicer much newer stuffs could be published.

> We got one or two reports of the trademark committee. For obvious
> reasons, our strategy with regards to brand is not openly published.

--
Aphaia
aka
Kizu Naoko
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Aphaia wrote:
> On 7/29/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>
>>>>So we expect you remember other present and important issues clearly,
>>>>including the informally proposed Houserule for Wikimania?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm rebellious, surely not following that one. :)
>>
>>I missed a step. What is this Houserule ?
>
>
> ah it's a joke. Danny proposed "R35 for alchol" and certain people
> like our Lithuanian friend don't like it.
>
>
>>As for hardware purchase reports, they have never been as clear as
>>today, since precise purchases are detailed and voted in a resolution.
>>They may all be found on the wikimediafoundation site. Now, just a
>>thought : if you are a visitor not familiar with this website, I wish
>>you good luck to find the resolutions :-) They are very much hidden. It
>>would be nice that someone helps to make them more visible. Perhaps even
>>putting a [[resolutions]] link in the toolbar.
>
>
> Toolbar is one of improvement needed things definitely. It can be
> optimized through MediaWiki:Sidebar only for sysop.

Why do I feel...

Okay, remind me of that issue after Wikimania please :-)


> Other potential addition is "policies" -> Privacy policy & Visual
> guideline. The latter is hardly found too, I'm afraid.
>
> It is fine to know the Board gets reports steadly. As the nect step,
> would the Board be interested in re-releasing some of those reports to
> the Foundation wiki or passing to Comcom as potential materials to the
> foundation wiki? Since 1) it is suggested some of those reports might
> contain things not suitable to be in public, 2) those reports haven't
> been passed to Comcom [even by itself, IIRC]. I think we are rather
> better to bother the Board in this area.

okay. I'll see what we can do. Ant

> Delphine permitted me to reuse her reports on early summer European
> tour as report from Chapter Com (see my meta talk), but it would be
> nicer much newer stuffs could be published.
>
>
>>We got one or two reports of the trademark committee. For obvious
>>reasons, our strategy with regards to brand is not openly published.
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l