New Models of Affiliation update

Discussion:

Bishakha Datta

2012-03-01 17:46:12 UTC

Dear all,

A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement
since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the
emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant
questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.

A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in
the next 15 days. We are:

Bence Damakos - ChapCom
Bishakha Datta - WMF Board
Joan Goma - Amical
Sam Klein - WMF Board
Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom
Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor
Marcos Talles - WM ES
Galileo Vidoni - WM AR

Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New
Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is
already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the
issue, or is likely to be affected by it.

We will conduct our discussions on meta at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the
following timetable:

*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation_models.2C_names.2C_and_overlaps
Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2
March

*2.2 Requirements for recognition
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirements_for_Recognition
Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March

*2.3 Rights and duties *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_Duties
Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March

*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_and_privileged_status_within_a_.28region.2Fcontext.29
Deadline for c and q: 8 March

*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership.2C_Communities.2C_and_Collaboration

Deadline: 10 March

*2.6 Mentoring and review*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_and_review.2Fsummary_of_groups
Deadline: 12 March

*2.7 Governance*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance
Deadline: 14 March

It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue
would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above.
(Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the
whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the
smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back
next week on steps after 14 March.

We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft
proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your
interest and participation.

Cheers
Bishakha

Béria Lima

2012-03-01 18:23:07 UTC

Permalink

And the rest of MR working group?
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*

*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**

*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by Bishakha Datta
Dear all,
A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement
since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the
emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant
questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page.
A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward
Bence Damakos - ChapCom
Bishakha Datta - WMF Board
Joan Goma - Amical
Sam Klein - WMF Board
Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom
Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor
Marcos Talles - WM ES
Galileo Vidoni - WM AR
Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on
New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members
is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the
issue, or is likely to be affected by it.
We will conduct our discussions on meta at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per
*2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation_models.2C_names.2C_and_overlaps
Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2
March
*2.2 Requirements for recognition
*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirements_for_Recognition
Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March
*2.3 Rights and duties *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_Duties
Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March
*2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_and_privileged_status_within_a_.28region.2Fcontext.29
Deadline for c and q: 8 March
*2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership.2C_Communities.2C_and_Collaboration
Deadline: 10 March
*2.6 Mentoring and review*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_and_review.2Fsummary_of_groups
Deadline: 12 March
*2.7 Governance*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance
Deadline: 14 March
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue
would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above.
(Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the
whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the
smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back
next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft
proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your
interest and participation.
Cheers
Bishakha
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Bence Damokos

2012-03-01 18:39:44 UTC

Permalink

Post by BÃ©ria Lima
And the rest of MR working group?
Hi Beria,

Post by Bishakha Datta
It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue
would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above.
(Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the
whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the
smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back
next week on steps after 14 March.
We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft
proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your
interest and participation.

I think the last two paragraphs from Bishakha's letter captures the intent
quite well. Everyone is welcome to join in, especially those on the MR
group. It is not meant to be exclusionary in any way.

Best regards,
Bence

Theo10011

2012-03-01 18:41:56 UTC

Permalink

Why are you picking and choosing from the group now?

I have to say I am very surprised to see Achal still included in the group,
after virtually no involvement in the group in the past year. Not to
mention some conflicts with Goma.

Sj, what happened to opening the group and everything up? This in my view
is a step in the other direction.

Regard
Theo

Bishakha Datta

2012-03-01 19:28:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Theo10011
Why are you picking and choosing from the group now?
I have to say I am very surprised to see Achal still included in the
group, after virtually no involvement in the group in the past year. Not to
mention some conflicts with Goma.
Sj, what happened to opening the group and everything up? This in my view
is a step in the other direction.
Regard
Theo

Hey Theo,

Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open
discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if
compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group
(sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what
we're doing here.

The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of
consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a
small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will
happen.

It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we
need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to
wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people
who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on
it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort,
this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a
proposal to a reality.

The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could
participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute
to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.

Cheers
Bishakha

Theo10011

2012-03-01 19:41:06 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bishakha Datta
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through open
discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low if
compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group
(sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what
we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of
consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a
small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will
happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and we
need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated to
wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of people
who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on
it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort,
this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a
proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list could
participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to contribute
to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it to fruition.

I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your
definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&offset=&limit=500&target=Theo10011

As far as achal goes-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&offset=20110729161301&limit=500&target=Aprabhala

I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to
Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research
project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post
from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the
"steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's
back to the old one.

There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered
showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems
to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR
group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and
contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated
this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to
participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time
that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.

Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to
the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to
the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force
and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.

I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my
definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.

Theo

Joan Goma

2012-03-01 21:08:47 UTC

Permalink

Personally I have no âmeritâ to belong to this group nor âcracyâ to force
anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of
meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the
commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the
fixed timetable.

Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you
also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the
advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary
and both earn the same.

Hint:

x = x/2 -> x = 0

Post by Theo10011

Post by Bishakha Datta
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through
open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low
if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group
(sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what
we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of
consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a
small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will
happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and
we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated
to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of
people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on
it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort,
this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a
proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list
could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to
contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it
to fruition.

I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your
definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&offset=&limit=500&target=Theo10011
As far as achal goes-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&offset=20110729161301&limit=500&target=Aprabhala
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to
Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research
project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post
from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the
"steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's
back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered
showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems
to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR
group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and
contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated
this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to
participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time
that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal to
the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution to
the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task force
and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my
definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Theo10011

2012-03-01 21:21:55 UTC

Permalink

I don't know what you are talking about. Yes, half of nothing is nothing,
no one is getting paid, not sure what's the point of bringing it up in a
group that has only volunteers. Did someone imply otherwise?

Your condescending comments, while intended to sarcastic are not making any
sense. None of the board members or the participants are there for money.

This is about volunteer work, my time, and time of several others over the
last year. Don't devalue mine for yours, or value the one who didn't give
any.

The conflict I referred to, was Amical is/has been the group that this
recognition model would be implemented for, while I always valued your
involvement, I do think this is not giving a proper representation to all
the interests involved.

Regards
Theo

Personally I have no merit to belong to this group nor cracy to force
anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of
meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the
commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the
fixed timetable.
Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you
also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the
advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary
and both earn the same.
x = x/2 -> x = 0

Post by Theo10011

Post by Bishakha Datta
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through
open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low
if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group
(sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what
we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of
consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a
small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will
happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and
we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated
to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of
people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on
it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort,
this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a
proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list
could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to
contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it
to fruition.

I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your
definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&offset=&limit=500&target=Theo10011
As far as achal goes-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&offset=20110729161301&limit=500&target=Aprabhala
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to
Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research
project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post
from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the
"steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's
back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered
showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems
to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR
group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and
contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated
this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to
participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time
that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal
to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution
to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task
force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my
definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Bence Damokos

2012-03-01 21:42:30 UTC

Permalink

Hi Theo,

In reply to your previous e-mail, I have no info about an in-person meeting
or the possibility that this chosen group would be funded to travel to
Berlin â that seems very unlikely given that the work is scheduled to
finish before the Berlin conference and is to happen online.

You are right that the grouping includes people who have previously
contributed to the wider topic in one way or another (e.g. I could cite
Achal's pilot to bootstrap the South African chapter) even if not
necessarily the movement roles discussion; and might not include some very
active participants of the MR group.

The grouping is a bit random but it does not necessarily exclude some
prominent people because of spite, but simply because they were busy (e.g.
Alice or Lodewijk have been approached to my knowledge) or noone thought of
them. What Goma refers to is, there is no benefit in either being in the
group or not being in the group as the work is happening on Meta, there is
no new mailing list (Bishakha might send some reminders on the MR list),
nothing at all (and with your questioning, I would say that there are
negative benefits). There is nothing to stop Bishakha from creating ten
different, competing groups, some of them even overlapping and having them
work on Meta; similarly it doesn't matter if I create an anti-group, the
end goal is that work is done on the one Meta on time.

If it helps, I am very happy to exchange places with you on this
distinguished group. And as Goma put it, as there is no benefit, I am happy
to share my one spot in the group and all the benefits and corresponding
work of it with as many people as would like to join.

Best regards,
Bence

Post by Theo10011
I don't know what you are talking about. Yes, half of nothing is nothing,
no one is getting paid, not sure what's the point of bringing it up in a
group that has only volunteers. Did someone imply otherwise?
Your condescending comments, while intended to sarcastic are not making
any sense. None of the board members or the participants are there for
money.
This is about volunteer work, my time, and time of several others over the
last year. Don't devalue mine for yours, or value the one who didn't give
any.
The conflict I referred to, was Amical is/has been the group that this
recognition model would be implemented for, while I always valued your
involvement, I do think this is not giving a proper representation to all
the interests involved.
Regards
Theo

Post by Joan Goma
Personally I have no âmeritâ to belong to this group nor âcracyâ to force
anyone to do anything. From my point of view it is not a matter of
meritocracy I do it solely for the money they pay me, so I accepted the
commitment to give my opinion to the questions raised according to the
fixed timetable.
Personally I have no conflict with you and would be very pleased if you
also post your comments. The salary is very good. The quantity has the
advantage that if Bishakha do not want to pay you we can share my salary
and both earn the same.
x = x/2 -> x = 0

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Bishakha Datta <

Post by Bishakha Datta
Hey Theo,
Right from the early days of MR, we have usually made headway through
open discussions on meta (usually rather low, in fact extraordinarily low
if compared to fundraising discussion) + a small informal working group
(sometimes 2-3 people) taking each piece forward. This is exactly what
we're doing here.
The idea remains to consult widely (one can only hope), find points of
consensus, work through points of difference and get somewhere. Without a
small group of people committed to doing this, I am not sure this will
happen.
It's been about 21 months since the MR process kicked off in Gdansk and
we need to start bringing things to closure as this phase of MR is slated
to wrap up at the end of March. So the group is just that - a group of
people who are interested in the issue and committed to working together on
it...this is not about ownership or taking credit or anything of that sort,
this is about getting together to take New Models of Affiliation from a
proposal to a reality.
The discussion on meta is open to all. If you or others on this list
could participate that would be a very meaningful way of continuing to
contribute to what we have all worked on since July 2010 - and bringing it
to fruition.

I am sorry but I will be frank here Bishakha, I don't know what your
definition of committed is, but mine is there for you to see-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theo10011&offset=&limit=500&target=Theo10011
As far as achal goes-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aprabhala&offset=20110729161301&limit=500&target=Aprabhala
I fail to see a single edit from him in the last 2 years related to
Movement Roles. The last 200 edits were mostly for his own research
project. In the entirety of the last year, I have not seen a single post
from him on this list or Meta, yet the project started out with him in the
"steering committee" and now an year and 20 other contributors later, it's
back to the old one.
There are people here like Alice, and Abbas, not just me, who bothered
showing up for meetings, following up, cleaning up on wiki. But there seems
to be something very wrong going on here, someone just took the existing MR
group, and cherry picked. The only issue is, I can question involvement and
contribution not just from you, but several others. People who debated
this, and discussed it for months, they are being left out now to
participate as any random individual can on-wiki. All the work and time
that we devoted doesn't seem to matter.
Since someone brought up use of donor funds, I wonder what adding Achal
to the meeting accomplishes? I can point to his non-existing contribution
to the strategy project before this, when he was put in charge of a task
force and made 30 or less edits in the entire existence of that wiki.
I wonder if lodewijk or Bence think this is right. This is not my
definition of meritocracy. This is wrong and I object.
Theo
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Bishakha Datta

2012-03-02 06:03:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by Bence Damokos
Hi Theo,
In reply to your previous e-mail, I have no info about an in-person
meeting or the possibility that this chosen group would be funded to travel
to Berlin that seems very unlikely given that the work is scheduled to
finish before the Berlin conference and is to happen online.
You are right that the grouping includes people who have previously
contributed to the wider topic in one way or another (e.g. I could cite
Achal's pilot to bootstrap the South African chapter) even if not
necessarily the movement roles discussion; and might not include some very
active participants of the MR group.
The grouping is a bit random but it does not necessarily exclude some
prominent people because of spite, but simply because they were busy (e.g.
Alice or Lodewijk have been approached to my knowledge) or noone thought of
them. What Goma refers to is, there is no benefit in either being in the
group or not being in the group as the work is happening on Meta, there is
no new mailing list (Bishakha might send some reminders on the MR list),
nothing at all (and with your questioning, I would say that there are
negative benefits). There is nothing to stop Bishakha from creating ten
different, competing groups, some of them even overlapping and having them
work on Meta; similarly it doesn't matter if I create an anti-group, the
end goal is that work is done on the one Meta on time.

This is a very accurate characterization. I did speak to Lodewijk and
Alice, who could not commit.

As Bence puts it, the only extra 'benefit' that the 7 people who have
agreed apart from me seem to get is that I will hound them by email and
push them to contribute within the timeline etc.

There is no new mailing list, nothing at all - so can you please bring your
thoughts on to meta as you have done in the past and follow the timeline?
That will really help.

Best
Bishakha

Béria Lima

2012-03-02 10:41:14 UTC

Permalink

did you talk with the other members? Aniruhd and Theo for example aren't
in your list. Can you tell me why?
_____
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*

*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>**

*
** <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by Bishakha Datta

This is a very accurate characterization. I did speak to Lodewijk and
Alice, who could not commit.
As Bence puts it, the only extra 'benefit' that the 7 people who have
agreed apart from me seem to get is that I will hound them by email and
push them to contribute within the timeline etc.
There is no new mailing list, nothing at all - so can you please bring
your thoughts on to meta as you have done in the past and follow the
timeline? That will really help.
Best
Bishakha
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Lodewijk

2012-03-05 11:31:43 UTC

Permalink

Sorry to be late to the party. I have a bit trouble understanding the
structure of the discussion page (many opinions seem to be unsigned and it
is unclear what is opinion and what is statement of consensus) but I have
tried to add some remarks here and there.

Lodewijk

No dia 1 de Março de 2012 18:46, Bishakha Datta