Agreed but for a different reason -- both are subject to high degrees of random pruning. The end product of natural selection is often not the "most fit" of all the variants ever born, but simply the most fit of those not culled by random disasters and pruning. Ditto for innovation impact, where we can clearly see that new innovations that become the standard in a society are often not the 'best' by what we now think are natural metrics of fit [network effects, social norms, many other adoption ratchets dictate what's possible]

{{cn}} for examples that truly seemed trivial (as opposed to there being examples of pundits whose hot takes underestimated how important they would be)

simple, widely applicable -- I'd guess that to first order these occur equally at all levels of the tree. easy to have an early node that is not general purpose / only useful at that one stage of understanding; and easy to have a leaf node like "Lie groups" that end up being extremely widely applicable but only develop thousands of steps into a mathematical sequence.

Is it? {{cn}}

Not sure this is true. Plenty of counterexamples. Similar branches often conflict along the lines of the branch, distant topics often have many possible fruitful combinations.

"Often" > "by default" - counterexamples exist. Most obviously when you mix things with countervailing constraints

sometimes implementation comes first.

some people are good at one and not the other, or only do one and not the other; but in collaboration can produce both.

decomposition into modules or nodes is often better when done in collaboration, not by a single [mind]

Can't think of a definition/invention of tech that doesn't cover the prolific technology developed throughout the natural world, before and aside from people... most of which does not come out of a single mind.

Is there a way to reframe this so that "from a single human mind" is clearly a subset of all X? often that mind gets inspiration from other elements of X not developed by or around humans at all. and we have excellent examples of [trees] of discoveries made by non-humans which are passed on socially.

Is this true in more than just the sense in which "binaries are misleading" is true?

What about 'modeling', 'simpler descriptions that more clearly illustrate separable components', or 'more minimal spanning bases for a space of ideas', or 'understanding of implications' which could lead to remediation, amplification, or undiscovery?

Here's an example (supersonic trebuchet) of the π Theorem, and modeling, applied not to really invent something new but to test + build an instance of an imagined but not-yet-reified tool.

If you define 'learning by doing' as 'idea sex including some ideas that are felt but not articulated until the doing', then these are two sides of the same coin. Often doing something helps you suss out / refactor the underlying idea that combined nicely with another, and you get a node elsewhere in the map

hidden link?

They also obscure old knowledge. cf Braess's paradox

How about a lens, both magnifying some things and directing light/shadow to others? It seems like an antipattern to believe that such trees are pareto improvements in a 'forward' direction, rather than shifts that change what is visible, accessible, attainable. Advances that supersede (by taking over human energy in the space, or taking over one's thought process) in general still lose some previous clarity and are only 'strictly better' in some aspects.

Often not acyclic: individual discoveries have feedback loops that resonate w/ others. Usually moving 'forward' or growing stronger, but sometimes engaged in cyclic flow (advancing knowledge of X reduces or remaps knowledge of Y)

Delete this ?

Mr. Cuban to you

There are so many things wrong with this sentence. Forced? Serious? How could an ED imagine this was an appropriate way to escalate a disagreement with their former president? And how politically deaf to continue in this fashion.

This reads like a legal threat, perhaps against Christophe, but left vague.

The remaining members of the chapter's board, after the recent string of resignations.

Two very new appointments to the board, who may have no context for these affairs. Louise Merzeau was widely respected for her scholarship on the commons; to the dismay of all, she had little time to engage with board or community before passing away on July 15.

This is the first hint that the current Board may feel legally threatened. Some part of the {Board+ED} is clearly attuned to legal action.

Second deprecation of volunteers, this one quite strong. Every part of the movement has to work with communities of practice, volunteers, and armchair experts; rarely described as "interference".

This blacklist includes: former chapter Board member Pierre Selim (who reported to the members about the first wave of blacklisting), Mathis Benguigui (who created the timeline), and at least 4 others.

All of these were active critics of the current Board, who had voted to hold an early General Assembly (a vote which, at the time, had not yet reached the 70-member threshold). Removal prevents them from voting or standing in elections to the board.

However, exclusions from the association must be ratified at the next General Assembly. and the remaining members can vote to reinstate them.

Not only have they removed current members who have criticized the association, but they intend to refuse future applications.

Summarizing many other discussions: the basis for negative comments seems to be that the Association is not functioning well.

General:

• Staff and board members leaving
• Decreased project success
• Worsening relations w/ the WMF, ignoring the FDC

Communication + respect:

• Little communication w/ members
• Derailing discussions w/ victimisation (as in this letter)
• Limited respect for members (incl the affair w/ Z.)
• Recent censorship of communication among members

Staffing + planning:

• Firing the one community liaison
• The ED hiring her husband as Deputy ED
• Unclear plans for fundraising, sustainable funding
• Pursuit of a free-knowledge endowment w/o discussion

All of the above is before the publishing of this email, with its legal threats & further closing of communication.

It seems staff were all removed from the list. It was suggested that this (& pre-moderation of messages) ensured staff were not being criticized on an Association-hosted list, which could possibly be interpreted as a violation of labor law.

A public WikimediaFR list was set up in response:

On July 5, some chapter members became concerned about an effort to fundraise for a broad endowment fund for free knowledge, which the board and community knew nothing about. A question about it on the mailing list was not answered, a follow-up was blocked from the list. Employees were unsubscribed from the list, Anthere created the public list later that day.

On July 9, the board treasurer resigned.<br> On July 11, the list was closed and this mail sent.

Funding cuts happen from time to time, but rarely to this degree for a large chapter. The French chapter had not acted on feedback from the previous year's review. Its plans moreover did not address their Board issues, staffing issues, or program troubles. Their funding allocation was reduced by 40%.

An entirely positive paragraph, with a constructive idea. Lovely!

But in context... Just before this letter was published, the Association's members called for an early General Assembly. They needed, and received, the support of 1/4 of the active chapter members. The early GA will already be a large meeting in Paris, possibly August 26-27, before the beginning of the school year.

Sharing the idea for an open meeting without referencing the upcoming GA, seems odd.

Combined with the combative legal tone of other parts of the letter, this can be read as a threat to current and past employees not to speak up or rock the boat.

Telling a disabled [former] member that they are discriminating against you by holding events in another building : Not a good look.

This is why crisis management is important. However "Let's stop talking about the crisis because it is a distraction" is not a good response.

I haven't seen any accusations of embezzlement; just the claim that the proposed endowment fund would indirectly personally benefit the ED. (Unclear how.)

An endowment can be an excellent idea for an established project or program. Can anyone supply a link to one of these public consultations?

Should read: "our".

A constructive admission; yet not a recognition that this was the wrong thing to do, nor a commitment to do better.

A strange thing to call this out, when one of the concerns about the Association is that its ED brought on her husband as the other member of the executive team, and her only report.

It is hard to imagine her defaming anyone. Indication that "defamation" is synonymous with "criticism of any sort" throughout this letter.

This is thoughtful, but neither an apology nor an acceptance of responsibility for the impact of an event run entirely by the chapter.

By all other accounts, that is what they tried to do.

Are there any (other) chapter members supporting the stance of its Board and management?

Here things start to really go off the rails.

Christophe is respected in France and globally, among other things for being sensible and not given to drama. Hence his time as president of WMFr and chair of the WMF board.

This sounds nice. Or it would if three paragraphs earlier the same letter hadn't shut down the obvious forum for discussing discontent.

A public list for WikimediaFR members was set up on July 5 by the members, after the original list mods began blocking certain messages.

This seems to suggest that the Board is doing the members a favor by continuing to function.

One of the chapter's claims to authority includes being open to all community members, and letting anyone who wishes to pay dues vote for the chapter board.

They are splitting hairs by trying to exclude some people from official membership (with the ability to vote, and access to the internal mailing list) while emphasizing later on that they still support all community projects by wikimedians in France.

The chapter's internal mailing list, to which this was posted. The members of the list are the ~350 members of the chapter.

When your charity's primary goal is ensuring its own integrity, it may have lost its way.

Without specifics it's hard to distinguish actual concerns around slander from intimidation of critics. But the norm in Wikimedia communities is very strongly in the other direction: allowing strong critique and complaint.

The WMF has politely gone on record suggesting that it is the French chapter leadership's recent actions that threaten community values.

That's.... not how the WMF works. Delphine?

Chapters have gone through much more serious trouble and gotten only support and help recovering from the Foundation. The only chapters whose agreements are not renewed are those with no activity or public updates.

This is where the conspiracy theory starts.

FDC allocations are recommended by a community body, composed of elected community members (most of them also experienced members of various chapters). There is some input to the process from WMF staff, but the community members do the bulk of the work and make the final decisions.

The WMF Board is presented with the FDC recommendations, spends a short time reviewing them, and has always approved those recommendations without change.

The FDC is also usually critical of WMF practices -- it holds chapters in the movement to a high standard and offer a similarly critical analysis of the WMF annual plan each year [which the WMF, unlike the chapters, has no obligation to heed and does not always take to heart!].

So even if someone within the WMF or its Board wished to influence the FDC outcome, there is little mechanism for that to happen. [However some people casually associate FDC recommendations with "the US" and "the WMF" since the funds do come from the Foundation.]

I'm not sure what this means (the referenced email is on a closed list), but from public discussions Z stayed for quite some time after letting people know about the problems, and it was the responses from Nathalie and others, and lack of response in other areas, that made her leave and then quit the Association.

Z. filed a complaint about discrimination, insofar as the event did not live up to its goal of being accessible to the disabled and providing meals for vegetarians (lapses which were only discovered on arrival); and she was made feel unwelcome personally by the facilitator and organizers, after pointing out these issues to them. The WMF looked into this, interviewing some attendees to confirm details.

It seems the biggest issue here was confusing potential attendees: organizing their own separate event as though Z.'s event wasn't happening, and not responding to her correspondence to clear up the matter.

Not for healthy organizations.

Please add your own annotations if you have context for events referenced here.

There's a story here...

First deprecation of volunteers. The standard counterpoints apply: appeals to authority are a sign of weakness; a number of the community members in question have a full career of management experience; and the current staff executives are clearly struggling.

The Foundation is sending a small group to visit the chapter in August, to discuss these issues, and also offer financial and operational guidance.

My translation here is shaky. "au service de la dynamique de Wikimédia France et ce avec vous"

.#3.

"The contents of this letter are doubleplus true."

.#9, in case you weren't certain this letter was designed to chill speech. The vagueness about what might be criminal does not seem accidental.

.#8: threatening swift legal action.

Attack on critics #7: promising removal from the Association [also removing their vote from future elections]. It's unclear what the standard for is here; what sort of criticism would not count as harassment?

.#6. A good rabble-rousing quote, if a bit fascist.

.#5. I don't know if this language has legal significance.

I don't know what this refers to; it doesn't seem to be in the timeline.

Cutting straight to legal threats in the first sentence. This letter was clearly written with input from lawyers, making it all the more damning.

Hyphen or no hyphen?

typo, delete

Typo, delete

should read "he isn't"

He wasn't confirmed to HUD yet; so this language seems wrong

What happened to Chaffetz's comment weeks ago that they want all candidates to have to release a medical&psych profile?

For clarity: start sentence w "It could take a year or more..."

ok.

This looks great. Does this work for both text and box annotations if you have a subdomain rendering the pdfs?

remove

still prohibited

Bio?

what does this mean?

Bio?

Did he have his own legacy?

Did he have his own legacy?

Link!

Creswell!

Biography?

Link?

Do we have a link?

Style or

What counted as completeness, initially?

Permalink this to the canonical USC page? which I don't think is/should be this ad-sidebarred version (though it is LII which may indeed be canonical!)

Good pitch. Make larger, don't hide in the footer

Nice text :) Not attributed, I see...

Awkward.

Top-matter

Important distinction. Is there direct precedent?

Is 13 months a standard duration?

Dissenting opinion

This seems a bit odd.

Todo: add link

Todo: add link

This should be linked as well as the 14th.

What is this?

Defined where?