Mailing List Archive

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.
>
> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo
Hoi,
Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
introducing either.

Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said
that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for
the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together.
When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected
and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be
fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.

When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
about Wikipedia.

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

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
> little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
> Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
> You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
> introducing either.

Yes! Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)

> Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.

Not at all. I meant that some of the candidates are entirely
unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.

> When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
> WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
> that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
> person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
> statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
> about Wikipedia.

No, I did not mean to imply that. She is very very famous in the
English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that. I do not think it
should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)

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

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
>I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
>Mindspillage.
>
>Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
>community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
>Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
>Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
>votes.
>
>There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
>entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
>unable to work well with the community.
>
>Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
>and care about as human beings.
>
>I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
>community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


I trust, admire, and respect Kat Walsh. She takes the time to go on
trips with Brad to close opportunities and she is level headed. Had I
been allowed to vote, it would have been for her as my first choice
(which I have stated before). She has a strong personality and radiates
a sense of balance, strength without pushiness, and forcefulness with
ease at getting to the bottom of complex issues. I have been immensely
impressed with her.

Jeffrey V. Merkey


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

"I do not think it should count against her that she is an English
Wikipedian."

It could, if it turns out she is oblivious to issues in totally different
projects, such as the contentless Akan Wikipedia that doesn't even have an
admin to clean up the project. (I am not saying she isn't, I don't know if
she is or not.) We shouldn't even be considering what projects people are a
part of -- it's all about the Wikimedia.

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
> > little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
> > Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
> > You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
> > introducing either.
>
> Yes! Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)
>
> > Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> > democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.
>
> Not at all. I meant that some of the candidates are entirely
> unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.
>
> > When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
> > WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
> > that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
> > person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
> > statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
> > about Wikipedia.
>
> No, I did not mean to imply that. She is very very famous in the
> English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that. I do not think it
> should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:
> "I do not think it should count against her that she is an English
> Wikipedian."
>
> It could, if it turns out she is oblivious to issues in totally different
> projects, such as the contentless Akan Wikipedia that doesn't even have an
> admin to clean up the project. (I am not saying she isn't, I don't know if
> she is or not.) We shouldn't even be considering what projects people are a
> part of -- it's all about the Wikimedia.

Agreed, and precisely my point. Well said. :)

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

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.

Totally.


> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.

So do I. I will add that no-one, but no-one should feel that they
shouldn't vote for Mindspillage because she is US-based. They should
vote for the best candidates from which-ever country. My personal
biggest regret is that an excellent candidate from the US, Daniel
Meyer was not elected in the first ever foundation elections. No-one
knows if that was because Daniel comes from the United States, but if
it was, please, please, let us not make the same mistake this time
around. Vote for the wisest people you know, regardless of gender or
nationality, or sexual orientation, or whatever consideration other
than character. Remember that the board can, should it feel that there
is a relevant imbalance in the board in any respect, in its wisdom
balance *itself* by _appointing_ new members, and *do* trust that if
you vote wise members to the board, they will be able to assess the
need to balance itself by whom they appoint into their own number.

> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.

While I don't know Oscar from extended personal interaction,
everything I hear and have observed bears this out.

> Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo

This is directly to you, Jimbo. I say what you have done above, is
very courageous. Exposing yourself to criticism for trying to
influence the vote. And let me be clear, every word in the previous
two sentences should be construed at face value, no sarcasm, no irony,
just what the words themselves denote.

Let me take the opportunity here to openly and concretely address the
question of how the new elected board should approach the question of
appointing a replacement for Tim Shell when his resignation is due. My
personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
life members of the board . Daniel Meyer and Angela Beesley. Their
conduct has clearly demonstrated that they have at every turn put the
good of the foundation above their own. The fact that Angela Beesley
resigned the board when she saw it having developed in an unhealthy
way, demonstrates clearly that she is just the kind of person who
*can* be trusted to guard the overall and longtime disposition of the
board. Besides his awesome number of edits, Daniel Meyer stayed the
course as Chief Financial Officer, despite the fact that his job was
made challenging by problems of timely action by the board.

Angela and Daniel are both members from the community, and of the
community, and if we *do*, as I think we should do, elect permanent
members to the board, to ensure long-term stability, there are no two
people better to accomplish this. I repeat, no two people from the
community that I know could do better in this respect. I still
maintain, that if people from *outside* the community be appointed to
the board, by the board, they should serve a limited term just as the
elected community representatives do.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> > entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> > unable to work well with the community.
> >
>
> Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said
> that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for
> the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together.
> When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected
> and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be
> fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.
>

When you say that "It is for the people that are elected and who are
not elected to work together.", it perfectly underlines the point
Jimbo is making above. Some people *can* work together, others cannot;
and the electorate would *indeed* be wise, as Jimbo suggests above, if
they *do* elect people who *can* work together nicely with other
people. It is true that the voters have sovereign right to how they
choose to use their votes, but if they are *wise* they will vote in a
way that will ensure that their choises *do* lead to what both you and
Jimbo feel the representatives *must* do, to repeat again, to work
together with others. It is not irrelevant to evaluate how different
candidates would be able to do this, it is essential.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
"life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
still on the board.

Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
I think you have shot yourself in the foot. You are aware are you not that
there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
like how to replace Tim. At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
replace him if he so chooses to do this.

Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.

Clarity is needed because of the secrecy and the lack of responsiveness
needs to be replaced with a reasoned and reasonable openness combined with
at least the minimal courtesy of an acknowledgment of receipt when it has
been asked for. Focus is needed, because there are many opportunities for
us. These opportunities will nor remain there indefinitely and we have a bad
record on this. No is often a great answer, yes is often a great answer no
answer is an open invitation to more confusion and more cross purpose
activity. Focus is needed because there is a tendency to be overwhelmed by
all the things that could be done. It is much better to be clear what the
WMF is capable of and leave the rest to other associated organgisations.
Focus is needed because it allows us to finish things so that we can move to
new stuff. Clarity and focus will bring us less work because many of the
issues we deal with are there because we have not positioned the WMF well
and we have not made it clear what people are free to do within the WMF
framework.

Thanks,
GerardM



On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> > It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> Totally.
>
>
> > I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> > Mindspillage.
>
> So do I. I will add that no-one, but no-one should feel that they
> shouldn't vote for Mindspillage because she is US-based. They should
> vote for the best candidates from which-ever country. My personal
> biggest regret is that an excellent candidate from the US, Daniel
> Meyer was not elected in the first ever foundation elections. No-one
> knows if that was because Daniel comes from the United States, but if
> it was, please, please, let us not make the same mistake this time
> around. Vote for the wisest people you know, regardless of gender or
> nationality, or sexual orientation, or whatever consideration other
> than character. Remember that the board can, should it feel that there
> is a relevant imbalance in the board in any respect, in its wisdom
> balance *itself* by _appointing_ new members, and *do* trust that if
> you vote wise members to the board, they will be able to assess the
> need to balance itself by whom they appoint into their own number.
>
> > Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> > community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> > Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> While I don't know Oscar from extended personal interaction,
> everything I hear and have observed bears this out.
>
> > Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
> > votes.
> >
> > There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> > entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> > unable to work well with the community.
> >
> > Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> > and care about as human beings.
> >
> > I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> > community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
> This is directly to you, Jimbo. I say what you have done above, is
> very courageous. Exposing yourself to criticism for trying to
> influence the vote. And let me be clear, every word in the previous
> two sentences should be construed at face value, no sarcasm, no irony,
> just what the words themselves denote.
>
> Let me take the opportunity here to openly and concretely address the
> question of how the new elected board should approach the question of
> appointing a replacement for Tim Shell when his resignation is due. My
> personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board . Daniel Meyer and Angela Beesley. Their
> conduct has clearly demonstrated that they have at every turn put the
> good of the foundation above their own. The fact that Angela Beesley
> resigned the board when she saw it having developed in an unhealthy
> way, demonstrates clearly that she is just the kind of person who
> *can* be trusted to guard the overall and longtime disposition of the
> board. Besides his awesome number of edits, Daniel Meyer stayed the
> course as Chief Financial Officer, despite the fact that his job was
> made challenging by problems of timely action by the board.
>
> Angela and Daniel are both members from the community, and of the
> community, and if we *do*, as I think we should do, elect permanent
> members to the board, to ensure long-term stability, there are no two
> people better to accomplish this. I repeat, no two people from the
> community that I know could do better in this respect. I still
> maintain, that if people from *outside* the community be appointed to
> the board, by the board, they should serve a limited term just as the
> elected community representatives do.
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro
>
> Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
> September 2006 elections.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.

Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually.
I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who
don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of
having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when
that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are
resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good
candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David
Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and
Foundation needs.

It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006

I strongly support this platform and as I said at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe
Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the
development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has
shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the
Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of
openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in
ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him
as the person to replace me on the Board.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
http://a.nge.la
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.

Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually.
I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who
don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of
having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when
that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are
resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good
candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David
Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and
Foundation needs.

It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006

I strongly support this platform and as I said at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe
Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the
development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has
shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the
Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of
openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in
ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him
as the person to replace me on the Board.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
http://a.nge.la
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.

Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually.
I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who
don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of
having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when
that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are
resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good
candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David
Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and
Foundation needs.

It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006

I strongly support this platform and as I said at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe
Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the
development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has
shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the
Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of
openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in
ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him
as the person to replace me on the Board.

Angela

--
Angela Beesley
http://a.nge.la
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
> "life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
> idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
> be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
> it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
> still on the board.

No, I have not asked either Daniel or Angela. I indeed hope this comes
as a complete surprise to them :-)

What I think would be irresponsible was if we candidates were to
remain totally silent about our _thinking_ of what real names should
be considered for future consideration of the composition of the
board, and we were to only discuss the matter _after_ the election in
the retreat, away from the prying eyes of the community.

> Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
> I think you have shot yourself in the foot.

I hope it is the left foot.

> You are aware are you not that
> there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
> it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
> like how to replace Tim.

I most profoundly disagree. It would be irresponsible to ask the
voters to buy a pig in a poke. It is vital that they know our (the
candidates) real thoughts on this matter. The retreat will be the
place where the *differences* of our opinions will be discussed, but
*my* opinion I will, in the interests of transparency, and an informed
electorate, definitely state.

> At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
> replace him if he so chooses to do this.

He will not be replaced at this moment.

> Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
> you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
> going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
> create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.

Infighting should indeed be avoided.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Will there be some debate orginized between some candidates on irc?
Would someone want to orginize that? (if it has not happened yet)

Lodewijk

2006/9/16, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com>:
> On 9/16/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
> > "life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
> > idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
> > be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
> > it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
> > still on the board.
>
> No, I have not asked either Daniel or Angela. I indeed hope this comes
> as a complete surprise to them :-)
>
> What I think would be irresponsible was if we candidates were to
> remain totally silent about our _thinking_ of what real names should
> be considered for future consideration of the composition of the
> board, and we were to only discuss the matter _after_ the election in
> the retreat, away from the prying eyes of the community.
>
> > Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
> > I think you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> I hope it is the left foot.
>
> > You are aware are you not that
> > there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
> > it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
> > like how to replace Tim.
>
> I most profoundly disagree. It would be irresponsible to ask the
> voters to buy a pig in a poke. It is vital that they know our (the
> candidates) real thoughts on this matter. The retreat will be the
> place where the *differences* of our opinions will be discussed, but
> *my* opinion I will, in the interests of transparency, and an informed
> electorate, definitely state.
>
> > At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
> > replace him if he so chooses to do this.
>
> He will not be replaced at this moment.
>
> > Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
> > you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
> > going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
> > create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.
>
> Infighting should indeed be avoided.
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro
>
> Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
> September 2006 elections.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> > member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> > life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.
>
> Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually.
> I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)

Well, indeed I am not endorsing you for getting elected to the
position you hold at the moment (that woud be ridiculous). But an
appointment for a quite different role, the one that the current
appointees have fulfilled quite nicely. Not necessarily being all that
active at all times, but being a safeguard.

> My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who
> don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of
> having any positive influence within the current Board.

This is a strong statement. And while I can understand how you might
see it that way, your evaluation of the other candidates is perhaps
clouded by the fact that you have not perhaps observed the other
candidates as closely as you have Eric. Personally I reject the notion
that there is any only one candidate or only one person who can act
beneficiently in any one role.

I think your insticts are right, but I don't think your judgement is accurate.


> Later, when
> that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are
> resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good
> candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David
> Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and
> Foundation needs.

I won't contradict any of what you say, but I think this election
should not be about resolving conflicts internal to the board, but to
work toward making sure that there wouldn't be internal conflicts
within the board. I think it should be up to the electorate to decide
if electing Erik would best ensure a lack of conflict.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I welcome the recent discussions about candidates; it is an issue with our
project-based online structure that in many ways we can only know the
briefest of information about a candidate and, more especially, about how
others see them. I welcome that we have a range of candidates to select
from but, like others, recognise also that some have a 'more effective'
background that they can bring to bear on the Foundation's activities than
others, and some appear to not have as great 'inter-personal'
relationship building skills and others, but I wish them all well.

On Sat, September 16, 2006 09:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board .

May I say, completely independent of this election and the composition of
the current board, that I would consider the retention of *any* person as
a "permanent" member of the Board of any business or foundation as a very
dangerous situation. People change and people not previously considered
may appear who have more appropriate skills, knowledge and connections,
more importantly the *needs* of the Foundation will, as with any
organisation that seeks to grow improve and thrive in the long term needs
to have the regular ability to bring in new talent and 'retire' those who
have served its former needs well but now need to move on so that the
organisation improves.

Just as Wikipedia has moved us all on from the 'dead-tree encyclopedia'
age, I don't think we'd want to find ourselves stuck with a Board of 80
year olds later in this century!

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

Well, as we are talking about this... the person I feel is the best
candidate, and who I have just voted for, is Mindspillage.

She is someone I trust totally, to do the job well and to do it for
everyone in the community. I have great respect for her, and for her
ability to work with others, effectively and with diplomacy. This is a
big factor in my decision, the board does not need someone who will go
their own way regardless of the opinions of others.

Mindspillage is smart, hard working, thoughtful, and has a clear
understanding of the foundation and it's future. I think she is the
ideal candidate.

Regards,

-- sannse

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.
>
> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.

Yes, absolutely.

> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.

I think that's a very important, and valuable, statement. I am on the
record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board
should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership
model, but not necessarily so). However, in that model, sitting Board
members can provide balance and reason by endorsing particular
candidacies. Angela has endorsed me, and I think it is vital for you,
Anthere and Michael to also share your views on the candidates.

I don't think a public, cross-posted mailing list thread is
necessarily the best way to do so, as it might turn into an exchange
of negativity. In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should
have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others
could easily make their opinions known.

I for one welcome and encourage questions and comments about my candidacy at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eloquence/Platform_2006

For those who do not wish to vote for me, I support the candidacies of
Arnomane, Mindspillage, AaronSw, and UninvitedCompany. I do not
support Oscar at this point in time; even though he is a very pleasant
and experienced person, I think his skills are primarily in the area
of diplomacy and negotiation, and will be more useful when the Board
is larger and the structures of the Foundation have stabilized.
However, I will probably support him for an expanded Board.

The voting system used in this election, approval voting, allows
anyone to vote for as many candidates as they want, and I would be
pleased to receive the support of you, the reader. I would also be
happy if one of the other candidates listed above won, as I think that
each one of them will do a great job at representing and helping to
run and oversee the Foundation in this critical period of its history.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
> vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006

Personally, I found Erik's verbosity to be inconsiderate and something
of strike against him in this election.

I think my reasoning was best explained by Erik on Wikien-l a few months back:

On 06/27/2006, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
>There are good votes and there are bad votes. A good vote is one where voters
>are presented with a concise summary of the different arguments that have come
>up in a discussion that preceded the vote, where the _options_ in the
vote have been
>developed through consensus, and where there is a strong culture that pressures
>voters to read and understand all arguments before voting. A bad vote
is one that is
>done ad hoc, out of process, with poor methodology and no clear prerequisites.

Erik may have some views on the value of voting which are perhaps
unusual in our community, but here he has stated something that we all
agree with: A vote where the voters do not understand their choices is
not a good vote.

Between Erik's lengthy platform, his candidate statement, and other
directly linked campaign materials there was a grand total of almost
20,000 words.

I think that it is safe to say all our candidates have a lot to say
about the election.. but if all 17 of our candidates used as many
words as Erik there would be a grand total of around 330,000 words to
read.

Could anyone expect any of the voters to spend *14 hours* of
continuous reading on the election?

So we are left with a situation where one candidate more than all the
others has not followed the request to be concise, where that
candidate takes much ground by making all the "Well DUH" statements
which sound good but don't actually differentiate the candidates, and
where our readers and translators will get tired of reading long
before they have given a fair treatment to all the candidates.

As it stands it took me an unreasonable amount of effort to read what
has been written and, perhaps more importantly, even with all those
words I found it hard to determine the meaningful differences between
the candidates by contrasting their statements.

I, like Jimbo, have had the opportunity to work directly with many of
the candidates... so I too have strong views on the several I would
support, and the ones I would not support. Without this experience my
ballot would probably be nothing more than a lottery ticket.

I think that the Election has so far been a bad vote.

I believe that, in part, this is due to the community failing to
engage in discussion as advocated by Jimbo, and the rest of it is that
some candidates have managed to aggressively promote themselves to the
exclusion of an equitable and fair election.

I don't think the bad behavior on the part of the candidates is
limited to Erik, although I do believe his excessive verbosity in the
material directly linked from his candidate statement epitomizes the
worst of it.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I am on the
> record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board
> should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership
> model, but not necessarily so).
[snip]

Although I have been generally opposed to stacking our board with
insiders simply because we have so much to learn from outside views, I
wonder what you would think of taking the top N approved people from
the current election for the board?

Perhaps it's a bit late at this juncture, but it is true that
multi-winner elections are relieved of some of the (mathematically
necessary) unfairness of single winner elections.

[snip]
> In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should
> have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others
> could easily make their opinions known.
[snip]

Whoa there!
Endorsements are not discussion!

Although endorsements are tolerable, they are not the stuff that good
votes are made of... The important point in Jimbo's post was to
discuss!

Our election should *not* be a popularity contest.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Although I have been generally opposed to stacking our board with
> insiders simply because we have so much to learn from outside views, I
> wonder what you would think of taking the top N approved people from
> the current election for the board?
>
> Perhaps it's a bit late at this juncture, but it is true that
> multi-winner elections are relieved of some of the (mathematically
> necessary) unfairness of single winner elections.

I have proposed such resolution to the board before wikimania. It has
not been approved.

Anthere

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales@wikia.com>


> It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

Shouldn't we do that by voting?
This message is a bad idea, except for the first sentence.

Bradipus


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

On 9/16/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com> wrote:

> On Sat, September 16, 2006 09:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> > My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> > member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> > life members of the board .


> May I say, completely independent of this election and the composition of
> the current board, that I would consider the retention of *any* person as
> a "permanent" member of the Board of any business or foundation as a very
> dangerous situation. People change and people not previously considered
> may appear who have more appropriate skills, knowledge and connections,
> more importantly the *needs* of the Foundation will, as with any
> organisation that seeks to grow improve and thrive in the long term needs
> to have the regular ability to bring in new talent and 'retire' those who
> have served its former needs well but now need to move on so that the
> organisation improves.
>
> Just as Wikipedia has moved us all on from the 'dead-tree encyclopedia'
> age, I don't think we'd want to find ourselves stuck with a Board of 80
> year olds later in this century!

Writing this now, just as I have heard of the passing of Rob Levin, I
am very cognisant of the fleeting nature of time, and our passing
through it, only to be judged finally by posterity, but even in our
lifetimes, and in the context of the board of trustees, permanent is
of course only permanent in the sense of not being up for periodical
confirmation. I think the bylaws quite specifically make reference to
the boards ability to dismiss members of itself by an internal board
vote. So I think the larger point you make is moot.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
> > vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
>
> Personally, I found Erik's verbosity to be inconsiderate and something
> of strike against him in this election.
>
> I think my reasoning was best explained by Erik on Wikien-l a few months
> back:
>
> On 06/27/2006, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There are good votes and there are bad votes. A good vote is one where
> voters
> >are presented with a concise summary of the different arguments that have
> come
> >up in a discussion that preceded the vote, where the _options_ in the
> vote have been
> >developed through consensus, and where there is a strong culture that
> pressures
> >voters to read and understand all arguments before voting. A bad vote
> is one that is
> >done ad hoc, out of process, with poor methodology and no clear
> prerequisites.
>
> Erik may have some views on the value of voting which are perhaps
> unusual in our community, but here he has stated something that we all
> agree with: A vote where the voters do not understand their choices is
> not a good vote.
>
> Between Erik's lengthy platform, his candidate statement, and other
> directly linked campaign materials there was a grand total of almost
> 20,000 words.
>
> I think that it is safe to say all our candidates have a lot to say
> about the election.. but if all 17 of our candidates used as many
> words as Erik there would be a grand total of around 330,000 words to
> read.
>
> Could anyone expect any of the voters to spend *14 hours* of
> continuous reading on the election?


<snip>

I completely disagree with this; I would much, much rather know *more* about
the people I'm voting for, rather than less. I would also like to know that
they are capable of writing well in at least one language, and that they
have interesting ideas about the projects and are willing to take the time
to express them. Remember: whoever is elected will be a very public
representative of the projects and the Foundation in many situations, and
thus that person needs to be articulate about them. So far Erik, and Aaron
Swartz through his series of essays on Wikimedia (which are well worth
reading), have done the best job of demonstrating this. I'd love to see the
same from other candidates, though it's late in the game. No one is forcing
anyone to read the candidate's statements... but since it's unlikely that
anyone has had sustained personal interaction with all of the candidates,
the statements are the only thing we have to go on in many cases.

Effe's idea of a debate is also not terrible, though it is also late in the
game: perhaps next election?

-- phoebe

--
phoebe ayers | user:brassratgirl | brassratgirl /at/ gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 9/18/06, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember: whoever is elected will be a very public
> representative of the projects and the Foundation in many situations, and
> thus that person needs to be articulate about them.

Let's remember though - for a board of trustees, typically each member
is not supposed to be, by design, a vocal public representative of the
foundation. This has been an historical tension with WMF - the role of
the board and the role of the executives.

A board's first function is the careful consideration of the
well-being of the Foundation's principles. And that often might mean
being unified specifically in NOT playing out Foundation issues in a
public forum.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l