User talk:I JethroBT (WMF)

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, I JethroBT (WMF). Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better? (test)

My apologies for posting this message in English. Please help translate it if you can.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

• Respond to questions on the discussion page of the idea.
• Join a small group conversation.
• Learn more about this consultation.

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The messgae failed on he.wikisource, it is full of red links. Nahum (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The message failed everywhere except Meta. The links are all internal links to Meta pages. --Yair rand (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nahum, Yair rand: We've assembled a small team to fix these links, so they should be ready soon. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be more careful with syntax from here on out. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot for fixing it so fast. Nahum (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added relevant info in guidelines since it's not the very first time when it happened.
— Danny B. 00:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: On some sites, the message is being delivered again and again with redlinks. I found b:cs:, n:cs:, q:sk: ATM. Did you run it accidentally twice by any chance or were those targets twice on the list?
— Danny B. 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Danny B.: Yeah, I also noticed these duplicates and others; we have been removing them. The MassMessage was only sent once, so I suspected there may be duplicate entries in the list, but checking through the target list, I don't see any duplicates for cs.wikinews, cs.wikibooks, or sk.wikiquote. Something may be wrong with the MassMessage system; it delivered the same message two hours apart when I only sent it once: ([1], [2]). I'm stumped for now, but I'll be looking into this before this list gets used again. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Grantmaking survey

Hi Chris; some comments.

• Roles: tick "Other (specify)", and there's nowhere to specify.
• ID with PEG: can't click on two tabs ...
• Satisfaction with resources: the issue "Suggestions from grants committee members during application review" should include "and community reviewers" in its wording, rather than being exclusionary.
• Importance of resources: again, community reviewers are excluded. Why?
• Reimagining grants: you might have indicated what the current structure is so that respondents can more easily see what structural change is being proposed—or given a brief summary of the proposed change from old to new.

Pinging User:Wolliff_(WMF)

Tony (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thanks for these comments on the survey, Tony. I've alerted EGalvez (WMF) to them so they can be fixed. I'm working on seeing what we can do about your additions to the survey and the idea page, so stay tuned. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've fixed the "other" response. For PEG, you are only supposed to mark one option, based on which you identify the most. Thanks so much for the tips! --Chedasaurus (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: The replyto template above was malformed; just alerting you to Ed's response. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Hey Tony. We have received many responses to the survey already, but, there are related questions on the survey that ask participants to assess the statement, I receive useful/timely feedback about my grant proposals, which would include community feedback. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not at all the point. Your wording is exclusionary—somehow treating GAC members as of different status to community reviewers. If you want to persist with that, I'm going to take it up in other forums. Tony (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Thanks again for your comments the survey. I see your point about wanting to make sure we are valuing and including community review, and I agree it's important. Do you also have thoughts about how we can include more about that in the idea itself?

Regarding the survey, those questions are about the types of resources WMF is already providing. There are a number of possible resources that could be included on the list that we aren't providing yet and that might be very important, but right now we needed to prioritize getting a better understanding of the resources we are already investing in. Since we put resources (e.g. staff time) into supporting committee review, we have included it on the list. This isn't because we value other types of community participation less than committee review, but because we haven't yet found a way to effectively put resources into supporting that. I can see why it would be important to clarify that if we run a similar survey in the future. I agree it's important to value different types of participation in the grants process in the context of a consultation like this, and I'm sorry if it felt like we weren't valuing those contributions highly enough!

We'd be ver interested in hearing your ideas about how we can better support community review, especially as part of the visioning discussion. There's a question included there that's specifically about how to make community review better.

Best, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Translate IEG Mass Message 2015-2

Hi, I translated the message into Spanish, but I've some doubts about the language and expressions that I've used... please, don't use it before a "informal review" from other Spanish speaker Regards Superzerocool (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants

My apologies for posting this message in English. Please help translate it if you can.

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals until September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request
• Get help with your proposal in IdeaLab or an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

Thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 20:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) through MediaWiki message delivery.