User:Sj/MR

Global cultural groups

Hi, Samuel, you've said "We are in the middle of relevant discussions about how to support global cultural groups of Wikipedians, including those without a state and those which don't map neatly onto a geography". I'm really interested on this issue, because I'm supporting the Esperanto projects. Is there something more I could read on this? Thanks (and sorry for the interception!). CasteloBranco^msg 05:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes! See the latest Movement roles discussions, including the recent notes on new models for partner organizations. I would be most interested to see an Esperanto-focused partner organization set up and proposed for official recognition. Unfortunately the Catalan group, which was previously the best example of such an organization needing formal recognition, may have abandoned that idea in favor of trying to become a traditional Chapter. –SJ · talk | translate 05:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Samuel. Additionally, I think it is a great ideia to invite Amir for mediating. CasteloBranco^msg 16:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I begin to participate on discussions like these? I saw you talking about Brazilian case, Esperanto and catalan initiatives, and I'm very interested in those issues. Are you using IRC? Do I need to subscribe somewhere? Hugs, CasteloBranco^msg 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Samuel! Thank you for inviting me. Now, I have exams at the university and the languages school, but I'll try to participate. I can't assure you that. Regards. --Millars 07:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I had seen you have a meeting by IRC tomorrow. Tomorrow and on Friday I have my Italian exams, but maybe I could be at the meeting. But in which channel? See you. --Millars 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Great work, model from religion

Especially tues. movement roles is important. here's another model to think about.

Most Christians are Catholic & accountable to vatican. Others are accountable to a protestant church but not catholic. Lots are ecumenical and not accountable to anybody.

The Wikimedia movement is Western Christianity. The foundation is the Vatican. Our chapters and projects are "catholic dioceses" that are semi-accountable to the Vatican. New projects are automatically Protestant.

We want everybody to still be a "Christian" no matter which group they're in.

Also edited [1] to add 'allies of wikimedia'. as you said, they're not priority but dont forget them. they are the place who will make us the wikimedia associations we want.

WM-CAT, Amical Viquipèdia

Dear,

Let me introduce myself: I am a Catalan Wikipedian who, not only dedicated to write articles, also spends his time to promote the free knowledge and wiki tools where and how I can. For this reason I associate to Amical Viquipèdia amd I support the chapter WM-CAT. All this is done with the firmest conviction, altruistically and voluntarily, spending my own time and money.

As a Trustee of the foundation would ask me to answer these questions:

In relation to me:

• What's wrong with me?
• What's wrong with the group of people who make WM-CAT?

Regarding the promotion of Wikipedia and free knowledge:

• Why should I stop before a line indicated on the map, when I can share with people the other side of this, that speak, think and feel like me?
• Why can I not, along with those who speak, feel and think like me, be considered equal to others who feel and think like me?

In relation to the Foundation:

• When the various Foundation's committees have become more important than community?
• Why people's interested in promoting the same that foundation aims to promote become a problem?
• When the foundation vision and values have gone down in the background?
• When the foundation has grown into something that can ignore Wikipedia principles?

Dear SJ, maybe my speech will seem harsh, but this is a discourse that comes from the heart and mind of one who, as you, is convinced of the validity of the project, but at the same time sees that a right as basic as being made part of a group in equality with others, is denied.

SJ: When the Trustees left to be bold?

Yours,

--Mafoso 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I leave the message in my matern language in order to avoid translation errors (my english is basic).

Dear Mafoso, Thank you for sharing in both languages.

The work that Amical is doing is promoting the mission of the movement as much as some Chapters, and certainly deserves formal recognition. The current definition of Chapters is a narrow one, and involves "lines drawn on a map" and related legal definitions. Some community members, including myself, are working towards defining other types of partner organizations that can be recognized formally, just as chapters currently are. These groups would not be defined by country, and would not be geographically exclusive.

I believe that this idea of a 'partner organization', developed in part through discussions with members of Amical and similar culturally-defined groups, would match clearly the aims of Amical and the original WM-CAT proposal. Recognizing those aims will hopefully facilitate and promote what you do for the movement, for free knowledge, and for sharing across boundaries.

Let me add, however, that Wikipedia and its sister projects are built on a much more important principle than "official recognition" within our community. They are built on the principle that everyone, from anywhere in the world, whether or not they are "recognized" by anybody else, can create knowledge, can improve knowledge, can share and redistribute knowledge, and can improve education for themselves and for their communities -- in their own language. The chapters (and, one day, other partner organizations) are only one part of our global network of creators, facilitators, associations. –SJ · talk | translate 09:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response ... My late, but is less than other board's fellow.

I know that you and others are working on what it's called partner organizations. With all due respect for the job, I do not think it necessary, why create a structure without a practical sense?, if the PO should be treated like the chapters does not make sense to have two names for the same thing.

Suffice to say that documents the requirements for future chapters rather says that this must be based on a state (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_chapters).

Right, this will be the primary distinction between chapters and other partner organizations. –SJ · talk | translate

Let me add that I agree with you: I will do the same task to Wikipedia auqesta is much larger than the foundation. and although the WMF does not admit me in equality than other colleagues who want to be or have formed a chapter based on state borders will not change the fact that I continue to defend the validity of the project.--Mafoso 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. I will work with the WMF on proper recognition for all community groups, but I am glad that we agree here. –SJ · talk | translate

Apreciat,

permet que em presenti : sóc un viquipedista català que no sols es dedica a escriure articles sino que també inverteix part del seu temps en promoure les eines wikipèdia i el coneixement lliure allà on pot i com pot , per aquest motiu em vaig associar a Amical Viquipedia i dono suport al capítol WM-CAT. Tot això ho faig desde la més ferma convicció, altruistament i voluntàriament , gastant el meu temps i diners.

Com a Trustee de la fundació li demano em respongui aquestes preguntes:

En relació a mi:

• Que hi ha de dolent en mi?
• Que hi ha de dolent amb el grup de gent que formem WM-CAT?

En relació a la promoció de la Viquipèdia i el Coneixement lliure:

• per què m'haig d'aturar davant d'una línia senyalada en un mapa quant el que faig ho puc compartir amb gent de l'altre costat d'aquesta que parlen, pensen i senten com jo?
• Per què no puc, junt amb aquests que parlen, senten i pensen com jo, ser considerat en igualtat de condicions que altres que senten i pensen com jo ?

En relació a la Fundació:

• Quan els diferents comitès d'aquesta han esdevingut més importants que les comunitats?
• Per què l'interes d'unes persones en promocionar el mateix que vol promocionar la fundació esdevè un problema?
• Quan la visió i valors de la fundació han passat a segon terme?
• Quan s'ha convertit la fundació en quelcom que és per sobre dels principis Viquipèdia?

Apreciat SJ , potser el meu discurs li sembla dur, però aquest es un discurs que surt del cor i la ment d'un que com vostè es convençut de la validesa del projecte però que veu al mateix temps que un dret tant bàsic com hauria de ser el fet de formar part d'un grup en igualtat de condicions que altres es negat.

SJ: Quan deixaren els trustees de ser valents?

Thank you so much!

Dearest Samuel, Thank you so much. Your witty answers amused me. I thought you would be afraid to answer my questions but, well,, deep in my soul (yep... birds have souls!) I knew you weren't the coward I thought you could be before, when you didn't answer Amical's demands to the Board. You see at one moment I even doubted your integrity and thought all your restless moves within the Movement Roles happened because of the proximity of the elections, because you wanted to be reelected once more as a Board member with the help of the Catalan-speaking community. I am confident now, I know you care deep inside about the projects and its people, whether coming from small or big communities, dominant or dominated languages, and I am really glad to count you as a friend. Take care, I wish you all the best, keep the faith because I know that the path of justice is a long walk... Respectfully, Your flying and resurrected friend, Capsot's ghost 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. As you can imagine it's Capsot again and not an ugly, nasty and evil sockpuppeteer. I hope you have a pleasant stay there. Well, I had to create a new name in order to be able to work on the Wikiccionari tonight and I am glad to concentrate on something more constructive. I hope my edits won't be reverted tonight. Take care, una abraçada, Claudi/Brave Capsot's Heart 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Affcom and Amical

Thanks for your kind words, Sj! I think will spend probably a couple of days answering because I'm doing a mash up of everything our community has said in Amical's internal wiki and also trying to properly translate the wording in order to keep the meaning of the words. Best regards & wikilove from Barcelona :)--Kippelboy (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as Ive learned...

the german WP is undermined by the de.union. I dont know what to do. They behave like an elephant in porcellain store, have mostly the adminrights in de.wikipedia.org and are not willing to come to terms with the community. Now the presidential of the Community Project Budget Ms. Rüther resigned, because of all is leaded by the branch office in Berlin (means P. Richter). As far as Im concerned, Im really out of that discussion:

„(...) Dies ist aber nicht der alleinige Grund. Seit geraumer Zeit habe ich Zweifel an dem Konzept des Ausschusses und letztendlich an der Idee selbst. Ich finde, dass der geleistete Aufwand in keinem sinnvollen Verhältnis zum Erfolg steht. Möglicherweise ist es eine Frage von Zeit, die ich aber investieren kann. Ohnehin hat den Löwenanteil an der Bearbeitung zunehmend die Geschäftsstelle übernommen. Ich bin inzwischen zu der Überzeugung gekommen, dass letztendlich diese auch dafür zuständig sei. (...)“ Ill try to translate for u:

"but this is not the only reason. Since some time Im in doubt about the concept of the commitee and the idea itself. I think, that the expanded effort is in no relation to the success. Perhaps its a matter of time, but I could afford that. But non the less the lion's share of the work did the staffed office. It is my conviction that they are consequently in charge of this stuff..." (out of mailing-list).

U know what I said about support of the community. There is none - all is vague.

--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. Is there a related discussion on de:wp? What do you mean "not willing to come to terms" ... a group containing most of the admins in a community is certainly part of the community, don't you think? –SJ talk  21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I dont want to explain either. Fact is and u can read what was said here on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Proposal_form. Facts is also that they do nothing for any support, and people who took the task to deal with those Community Project Budget money are bowing out, cause the head of administration is the only one to do or not to do. So those 250T Euros again are in indeferred liabilities. There is a small layer of people who shift the money from one pocket into the other. And they have admin or steward rights on de:wp - means controlling everything and everybody...as I said - Im out of that discussion but I think its a huge scandal how money from donors in Germany is squandered.--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The stewards I know are not part of the chapter governance, so I again don't understand. It is certainly difficult to distribute community project funds; different communities (from WM:PL to WM:DE to the new FDC) have been approaching it in different ways. I hope we will be able to compare the results of all of these different efforts next year, and see what we can learn from one another. –SJ talk  01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Global Request committee

Hiya Sj, I am thinking of taking a whack at the Global request committee. I'm not sure if I should start another RfC or rename the group, or borrow the work you started. I would love to have your support regardless, let me know if I should archive some of the old discussion there (which seems Meta-specific), or start fresh. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let's use the current RfC and simply restart the discussion. I also want to see the GRC come to pass; it is clearly needed a few times a year. Where the current discussion is too Meta-specific, feel free to clarify it. As with Ombudsmen, the idea was to address cross-project requests; with one or two meta-specific tasks that might also fall to it. –SJ talk  17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I made two comments at Talk:Global requests committee. Pine^✉ 21:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)