User talk:Peteforsyth/Heilman15
I'm planning to post this today, and would like some feedback/input (before or after posting to main space). Mike Linksvayer Nemo_bis John Vandenberg SlimVirgin Eekim Siska.Doviana Pine Frank Schulenburg Sue Gardner Eloquence Sj Any thoughts? -Pete F (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the sentiment, I think there are simpler alternatives, and I think that a thorough investigation of this matter will require access to information that is highly likely to be confidential. --Pine✉ 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- How is the paragraph about strategic planning connected to the dismissal? How could a new strategic plan be developed in a more open manner when the board and executives are acting in a non-open manner? Something else? Seems the connection ought be spelled out, otherwise we have to guess and/or assume the thinking behind the text is not coherent (personally I'm ruling out non-coherence but I wouldn't expect a reader who doesn't know you to do so). I added a wiki and external link that I'd appreciate as a reader. As to the substantive proposal, it seems reasonable to me. I have been following the discussion on wikimedia-l and remain disturbed and disappointed. But I don't know what the range of possibly simpler alternatives are. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good points Mike Linksvayer. On the first, I'll take a look at how I can spell out the connection to strategy better (or perhaps eliminate it). And as for links, thank you for getting to some stuff before I did -- still hoping to tidy this stuff up a bit. The first 20 minutes or so, and two questions in the last 5 minutes or so, are the relevant bits of the M&A meeting. (I watched it because of the Superprotect announcement, but that turned out to be the least interesting part of the meeting.) -Pete F (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Mike Linksvayer, I reordered and rewrote the first section this evening -- better/clearer now? (I do have a more direct answer to your question, but I think it goes beyond the scope of these proposals. In general, I think the community should seek to build its Strategic Plan independent of the WMF, and give WMF the opportunity to decide how it wants to align itself to that plan. I'd like to see us seek funding independent of WMF to support that. But that aspiration is not tied up in this proposal...and I realize that's a long shot!) Anyway -- does the text on the page make more sense now? -Pete F (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it flows a bit better now, more clear how the strategic planning mention fits with the rest. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Mike Linksvayer, I reordered and rewrote the first section this evening -- better/clearer now? (I do have a more direct answer to your question, but I think it goes beyond the scope of these proposals. In general, I think the community should seek to build its Strategic Plan independent of the WMF, and give WMF the opportunity to decide how it wants to align itself to that plan. I'd like to see us seek funding independent of WMF to support that. But that aspiration is not tied up in this proposal...and I realize that's a long shot!) Anyway -- does the text on the page make more sense now? -Pete F (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good points Mike Linksvayer. On the first, I'll take a look at how I can spell out the connection to strategy better (or perhaps eliminate it). And as for links, thank you for getting to some stuff before I did -- still hoping to tidy this stuff up a bit. The first 20 minutes or so, and two questions in the last 5 minutes or so, are the relevant bits of the M&A meeting. (I watched it because of the Superprotect announcement, but that turned out to be the least interesting part of the meeting.) -Pete F (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge the proposals
editPeople are more likely to assist in the crowdfunding if they know there is a trusted team responsible for the use of the funding. If the WMF does not allocate funding for an independent review of the situation, the community needs to do a "best efforts" thorough review using whatever resources and information we can get our hands on. Crowdfunding will give the committee teeth, providing one metric for how much the community cares about this problem. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, according to Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/James Heilman removal FAQ#Will there be an investigation? , if we want an independent or community led review, we will need to fund & organise it ourselves, as we did with Reclaim the Logo. Count me in for seeding the crowdfunding. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, John Vandenberg. Yes, I will move ahead with this in the next few hours. The "no investigation" justification is going to be heavily scrutinized, and I doubt the Board will find itself able to move forward with any kind of mandate without changing its position. The reasons stated on that page (compliance with bylaws and with the law) are much higher standards than were applied for Wikimedia UK, the Belfer Center, or the India Education Program (which were justified by mission compliance concerns). However, I do think that a community-initiated investigation, even if toothless, is entirely compatible with (and may even benefit) a more formal investigation once if (or, I predict, when) that happens. -Pete F (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- John Vandenberg, could you update the Reclaim the Logo page you link with a clearer outcome? As written, it is not immediately apparent how this was received by those proposing/supporting the measure, etc. It will make a much more compelling example if that gap in the narrative can be bridged. -Pete F (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, John Vandenberg. Yes, I will move ahead with this in the next few hours. The "no investigation" justification is going to be heavily scrutinized, and I doubt the Board will find itself able to move forward with any kind of mandate without changing its position. The reasons stated on that page (compliance with bylaws and with the law) are much higher standards than were applied for Wikimedia UK, the Belfer Center, or the India Education Program (which were justified by mission compliance concerns). However, I do think that a community-initiated investigation, even if toothless, is entirely compatible with (and may even benefit) a more formal investigation once if (or, I predict, when) that happens. -Pete F (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Crowdfunding platform?
editCan anybody help me pick a good crowdfunding platform? I was inclined to use w:GiveForward.com (since I have some experience with it), but its Terms of Use prohibit funding legal fees. There's a site called http://fundedjustice.com that seems oriented toward this purpose -- which seems like a big point in its favor, compared to sites more focused on medical expenses or startup companies -- but I haven't heard of it before. I've been looking around the web, but would appreciate any insights or research efforts from others. -Pete F (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a good reason to improve & expand w:Comparison of crowdfunding services .. ;-) John Vandenberg (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- w:Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom provides a much better approach to presenting the comparison. Unfortunately it is UK specific. John Vandenberg (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Great, will check! -Pete F (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- w:Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom provides a much better approach to presenting the comparison. Unfortunately it is UK specific. John Vandenberg (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have personal experience with any but if you want a relatively well known brand, w:IndieGoGo has a site somewhat recently called "generosity.com" that might work. Also recommend checking out w:Tilt.com; I believe[1] at least part of their service is open source and can be self-hosted (not that I'd recommend self-hosting for this, but option to do so is best aligned with values). Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you Mike Linksvayer. Both useful points. I looked at IndieGoGo at first (I've talked with their staff, I have a good feeling about them) -- but they are geared toward startups/products. I'll check their side project for sure, and Tilt too. -Pete F (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
To record an offline discussion I had with John Vandenberg: Crowdfunding sites charge about 5%, on top of credit card (or PayPal) fees. However, the benefits of using them may not really apply here. The main point of a crowdfunding site is to establish a framework for trust; but trust is something I think we already have in the Meta Wiki community. I'm an elected administrator, and I'm happy to share records with others. It seems worthwhile to simply use PayPal, and maintain careful records, with the ability of various parties to scrutinize them. I'd gladly welcome John and Mike Linksvayer for these purposes; if anybody doesn't feel sufficient trust in me to manage their funds, perhaps John's and/or Mike's presence would help. I'm open to adding others as well.
Also, I should note...we're now drifting pretty far off my initial intended schedule. That's all on me; sorry for moving slowly. I'd like to push forward more aggressively with this now, since the underlying issues have not been addressed. -Pete F (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- If a few thousand dollars of legal opinion is that important the WMF should just pay it. Though I suspect mediation would be a more useful route. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)