On 18/03/13 22:57, Katie Chan wrote:
On 18/03/2013 22:47, Gordon Joly wrote:
Seems that Wikimedia UK are the body involved in running this event
Wikimedia UK is supporting the bid, offering advice and support where
it can. The actual bid itself is led by volunteers Ed, James, Kimi,
On 18/03/13 23:15, Michael Peel wrote:
The thing I'm personally worried about is that not enough WMUK volunteers are
engaging with the bid. So if you're reading this and you're not already
involved in the bid, then please involve yourself!
The bid mentions the 70,000 volunteers (Games Makers)
Will Wikimedia UK be company doing the business (hiring, contracts,
publicity, registration, etc), or will a new company be formed for the
purpose?
We are looking at these kinds of details at the moment and haven't reached
a firm decision, but I think we're tending towards the former.
(For
On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
In this case, the bid isn't being submitted by volunteers and members of
Wikimedia UK as part of Wikimedia UK.
The bid is funded by WMUK, the bid team are operating
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
On 19 March 2013 08:26, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas
On 19/03/13 08:18, Chris Keating wrote:
Will Wikimedia UK be company doing the business (hiring,
contracts, publicity, registration, etc), or will a new company be
formed for the purpose?
We are looking at these kinds of details at the moment and haven't
reached a firm decision,
On 19/03/13 08:40, James Farrar wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
Very high quality. And that may be an issue the Barbican,
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
On 19 March 2013 08:26, Charles Matthews
On 19/03/13 08:44, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 19/03/13 08:40, James Farrar wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
Very high quality. And that
Some interesting comments here!
First of all the idea of WMUK supporting the bid has been chewed over by
the board for many months. In the end they agreed to support the bid.
Wikimania bids have not come from chapters traditionally but from
volunteers in the local community. The support of the
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jon Davies
jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
A good response here so I think it is worth doing - if only for the pizzas.
There are two people keen on it who will be trapped in the board meeting on
the 11th of May so that is probably not ideal.
I am going to
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid.
They don't. This thread is mostly
I feel we have a very real need for the phrase WMUK volunteer. Firstly, as
i have mentioned before, I am not sure that the term volunteer is the
best generic term for WM editors - I feel amateur bet captures the
relationship, although indeed often people volunteer for specific tasks.
With WMUK
On 19 March 2013 09:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared
with, for example,
My own view on Wikimania 2014 is that it should be set up as a separate
company, with WMUK as a corporate member on the board. Thought needs to go
into what is the best form for it: e.g. Community Interest Company might
be the most appropriate. This relates to how it is going to be funded.
On 19 March 2013 09:52, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 09:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I
can't actually
On 19 March 2013 09:59, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 09:52, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 09:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2013 08:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm being
Hello everyone,
I wonder if there's anyone able to help me please. I'm trying to convert a
.pdf file to a .djvu file but my converter hates me and doesn't work. I
wonder if there's anyone on this list who might be able to convert a file
for me please?
Any help gratefully received!
Stevie
--
If anyone in the office has an Ubuntu box, pdf2djvu is just what it
says it is ... or email me and I'll run it through it for you.
- d.
On 19 March 2013 12:05, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello everyone,
I wonder if there's anyone able to help me please. I'm trying to
On 19 March 2013 09:41, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
A subsidiary company?
That would be my suggestion. It isolates the charity's main funds from
the risks of the event (which will have a budget roughly equal to the
annual budget of the rest of the charity, so the risks are pretty
Many thanks to David for his help, this is now sorted :)
Stevie
On 19 March 2013 12:11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone in the office has an Ubuntu box, pdf2djvu is just what it
says it is ... or email me and I'll run it through it for you.
- d.
On 19 March 2013 12:05,
It's a complex set of affairs - but this is something that we'll have
to discuss in part with the WMF's financial and legal teams, once the
UK team win the bid. We're still in the first stages at the moment.
Rest assured that we will be taking professional advice - but that any
other opinions or
On 19 March 2013 10:55, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
CIC might be easy. Quicker than forming a charity, eh?
There's no need for the subsidiary to be a charity. WMUK can act as an
intermediary and all the tax advantages can come from WMUK's status.
Donations are made to WMUK, which
On 19 March 2013 15:42, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
[putting WM2013 hat on]
Wikimedia Hong Kong thought about setting up a subsidiary company for
Wikimania 2013 but decided against it. This is because the subsidiary
company (and therefore Wikimania) will not enjoy charity benefits,
On 19/03/13 12:52, Richard Symonds wrote:
It's a complex set of affairs - but this is something that we'll have
to discuss in part with the WMF's financial and legal teams, once the
UK team win the bid. We're still in the first stages at the moment.
Rest assured that we will be taking
25 matches
Mail list logo
