In 2015 I was elected to the Board of Trustees. I want to use this page to monitor and report my agenda and ideas for the movement (feel free to comment in the discussion). Currently (2019), the big arching goals and priorities I see for the Board as major challenges that I would like to help address include:
redesigning the Board of Trustees in such a way that every single member is at least really knowledgeable about our communities and understands open source/open collaboration (but also brings top-notch expertise currently needed for the organization to the table),
improving the WMF-the communities communication and understanding, as well as communication with the Board (through increasing the role of liaisons, community engagement, and also developing tools for tracking and voting - for instance, I'd love to see a tool where the community members could easily up/down vote urgent issues, questions and ideas).
working on talent retention and creating procedures and processes that will allow to both recognize and train new leaders from within our communities, as well as accommodate former leaders boards members etc. as mentors and trainers (this project is something I worked on within the Capacity Building strategic group, and I hope it will continue).
Working on ways that make cross-affiliate cooperation easier, as well as make it easier for the community members who do not feel the need to join affiliate organizations to benefit from infrastructures and resources that we have.
Increasing our movement collaboration with sister organizations, such as Creative Commons or other F/OSS organizations to at least be able to coordinate actions, if we decide we want to.
Working on new forms of the communities' representation in decision-making processes within the movement (some people proposed a "Wiki Senate", I think the idea requires further work).
My initial priorities (June 2015) included:
developing procedures and community control mechanisms for SuperProtect tool, Done
developing anti-harassment policies, Done
animating and developing our Advisory Board (possibly splitting it into Expert, Community, and Academic groups), Done
simplifying funding schemes (proven and good programs should get standard default funding from the FDC without the need to write detailed proposals), In progress...
including some of the WMF budget in the FDC feedback, Done
introducing community-elected liaisons to improve communication and feedback between the communities and the WMF and the Board, On hold
creating a list of topics for external researchers and universities to pick (in the areas that WMF research team finds most interesting and promising), allowing external researchers to tap into our data, as well as universities support their Ph.D. candidates and researchers in a more structured way ("GLAM for universities") (added in July, 2015). Not done
In more detail:
SuperProtect is gone! There have been a number of people who contributed to this success. My part was contacting WMF leadership every month since my appointment, to discuss the possibilities, as well as putting the formal request for status update about SuperProtect to all Board meetings.
Following with the Community Advocacy team, I returned to the community-approved widening scope of the Ombudsman Commission, that awaited resolution for 2 years, and, thanks to the support of the Legal Team, proposed the resolution by the Board, which successfully passed.
On January 15, 2016 Lila announced that ...the initial draft of the Annual Plan will be submitted using the FDC Format... and will be submitted for the FDC feedback.
A lot of anti-harassment work has been initiated (mostly without my input, although I did my best to assist the heavy-lifters whenever I could), and the recent grant from the Craig Newmark Foundation is hopefully going to seal the deal.
Revamping the Advisory Board is something I've worked over the last months, and after discussions within the group of former AB members, the Board governance committee, community advisors to the BGC, and the Board itself, we've developed a proposed structure that will, hopefully, be discussed during the next Board meeting and restart the thing.
Not finished (yet):
simplifying funding schemes (proven and good programs should get standard default funding from the FDC without the need to write detailed proposals),
While a lot has been done in this direction, the system is not perfect yet - I hope to work more on this after the FDC's meeting in May 2017.
After discussing it with the WMF community support team, we've reached a conclusion that this may be an idea to discuss within the wider community, and once we know how the strategy liaisons worked, perhaps we'll have a better insight whether it makes sense or not.
creating a list of topics for external researchers and universities to pick (in the areas that WMF research team finds most interesting and promising), allowing external researchers to tap into our data, as well as universities support their Ph.D. candidates and researchers in a more structured way ("GLAM for universities").
Just not done, in lack of time. I still thing it is a good idea and I hope to be able to work on it in the future.
I am currently an active user of Polish Wikipedia and one of its administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, and (rarely) mediators. I am also present on en-wiki and, very sporadically, on commons. Globally, I served as a steward for three terms, as well as an ombudsman. I served as the chair of the Funds Dissemination Committee for 3 terms 2012-2015. In my off-wiki life, I am a (full) professor of management in Poland, studying open collaboration communities.
A proposal for a new Wikimedia project is made, Wikilambda. It provides a solution to maintain articles once, but provide them in many languages, and a new sister project to collaborate on functions.
Visit the Meta-Wiki COVID-19 Portal for information and discussions on the Wikimedia movement's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is a discussion to remove all administrators, bureaucrats, and CheckUsers and set up an Arbitration Committee on the Croatian Wikipedia for alleged misuse of admin rights to promote biased content.