On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>.. > Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is > *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current" > agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or > authorized, I'd say it's still pretty hard for those who aren't actively > involved in the administration of chapters to really know what is going on. > The chapters agreement itself doesn't contain several of the points that are > so controversial in this thread, for example.
It is also pretty hard for people actively involved in the administration of chapters to know what is going on, and why. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:17 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > Nathan wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski <i...@sebmol.me> wrote: >>> Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are >>> you just assuming they aren't available publicly? >>> >>> The standard template for the agreement is published here: >>> >>> http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation >>> >>> There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general >>> principles apply through all of them. >> >> She was probably referring to the grant agreement, which is not public. > > Is there any reason it's not public? Not really asking you (Nathan) > directly, but asking the list, I suppose. It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time. I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
