[Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Information concerning the election rules, candidacy, and suffrage/ voting requirements for the 2009 election to the Board of Trustees is now posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/en. I have copied it below, but for the wiki-links to work, you will - of course - need to be on meta. For the election committee, Philippe The 2009 elections to the Board of Trustees will be held between August 3rd and August 10th 2009. Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect one candidate to a two-year term which will expire in 2011. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons. The elections will be held securely on servers belonging to an independent third party (to be confirmed). Votes are secret and are only visible to the select few persons who audit and tally the election. Voters will submit ranked preferences by numbering candidates. The votes will be tallied using the Schulze methodto rank candidates based on the number of voters who prefer that candidate over other candidates. The Election Committee intends to announce the results on or before August 12th. Detailed results will be available. All times on this page are 00:00 (midnight) UTC. Contents [hide] 1 Information for voters 1.1 Requirements 1.2 How to vote 2 Information for candidates 2.1 Responsibilities as member of the Board 2.2 Prerequisites to candidacy 2.3 How to submit your candidacy 3 Organization 3.1 Time line 3.2 Translators [edit]Information for voters [edit]Requirements You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must: not be blocked; and not be a bot; and have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 1 July 2009. Special exceptions: the following may vote regardless of the above requirements: Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the office before 01 March 2009; current or former members of the Board of Trustees. [edit]How to vote If you are eligible to vote: Read the candidate presentations and decide which candidates you will support. Go to the wiki page Special:Securepoll on one wiki you qualify to vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki meta.wikimedia.org/, go to meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Securepoll. Follow the instructions on that page. [edit]Information for candidates A detailed description of the responsibilities of a member of the Board can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member. [edit]Responsibilities as member of the Board Being a Board member of a small organization like the Wikimedia Foundation, which faces immense challenges, can be time-consuming. The position is voluntary and unpaid. While board members are not expected to bring personal money to the organisation, they are welcome to help raise funds. Board members are expected to attend at least 3–4 meetings per year in person, attend Wikimania (our annual conference), and attend other scheduled online meetings and votes. The Board communicates intensively via e-mail, wiki, and IRC. Individual trustees sometimes participate in strategic meetings with other organizations and companies, relaying results back to Board and staff. Individual board members are expected to be involved in certain activities (such as fundraising, Wikimania, or auditing) and to help draft policies, charters and resolutions on such topics. Because Board members owe duties by virtue of their position, candidates who currently hold paid positions with the Wikimedia Foundation must resign from those position before they can be appointed to the Board of Trustees. This is to avoid potential conflicts of interests. [edit]Prerequisites to candidacy To be eligible as a candidate, you must: have made at least 600 edits before 01 March 2009 on any one registered account (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009; and publicly disclose your real name in your candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym); and be at least 18 years old and of legal age in your home country. Special exceptions: current members of the Board of Trustees may be candidates regardless of the above
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Hello Philippe, I thought this year three candidates would be elected. Ting philippe wrote: Information concerning the election rules, candidacy, and suffrage/ voting requirements for the 2009 election to the Board of Trustees is now posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/en. I have copied it below, but for the wiki-links to work, you will - of course - need to be on meta. For the election committee, Philippe The 2009 elections to the Board of Trustees will be held between August 3rd and August 10th 2009. Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect one candidate to a two-year term which will expire in 2011. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons. The elections will be held securely on servers belonging to an independent third party (to be confirmed). Votes are secret and are only visible to the select few persons who audit and tally the election. Voters will submit ranked preferences by numbering candidates. The votes will be tallied using the Schulze methodto rank candidates based on the number of voters who prefer that candidate over other candidates. The Election Committee intends to announce the results on or before August 12th. Detailed results will be available. All times on this page are 00:00 (midnight) UTC. Contents [hide] 1 Information for voters 1.1 Requirements 1.2 How to vote 2 Information for candidates 2.1 Responsibilities as member of the Board 2.2 Prerequisites to candidacy 2.3 How to submit your candidacy 3 Organization 3.1 Time line 3.2 Translators [edit]Information for voters [edit]Requirements You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must: not be blocked; and not be a bot; and have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 1 July 2009. Special exceptions: the following may vote regardless of the above requirements: Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the office before 01 March 2009; current or former members of the Board of Trustees. [edit]How to vote If you are eligible to vote: Read the candidate presentations and decide which candidates you will support. Go to the wiki page Special:Securepoll on one wiki you qualify to vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki meta.wikimedia.org/, go to meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Securepoll. Follow the instructions on that page. [edit]Information for candidates A detailed description of the responsibilities of a member of the Board can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member. [edit]Responsibilities as member of the Board Being a Board member of a small organization like the Wikimedia Foundation, which faces immense challenges, can be time-consuming. The position is voluntary and unpaid. While board members are not expected to bring personal money to the organisation, they are welcome to help raise funds. Board members are expected to attend at least 3–4 meetings per year in person, attend Wikimania (our annual conference), and attend other scheduled online meetings and votes. The Board communicates intensively via e-mail, wiki, and IRC. Individual trustees sometimes participate in strategic meetings with other organizations and companies, relaying results back to Board and staff. Individual board members are expected to be involved in certain activities (such as fundraising, Wikimania, or auditing) and to help draft policies, charters and resolutions on such topics. Because Board members owe duties by virtue of their position, candidates who currently hold paid positions with the Wikimedia Foundation must resign from those position before they can be appointed to the Board of Trustees. This is to avoid potential conflicts of interests. [edit]Prerequisites to candidacy To be eligible as a candidate, you must: have made at least 600 edits before 01 March 2009 on any one registered account (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 01 July 2009; and publicly disclose your real name in your candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a
[Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Hello, The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit. The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3 expires on August 1 of this year. I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l because it is important and time sensitive. While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision, this has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia.(I myself had plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense -- even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.) Please help add to the list and contact those that you know: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing A selection of large GFDL wikis that have not confirmed plans to change their licenses: Enciclopedia Libre PlanetMath Sourcewatch, congresspedia the International Music Score Library Project 实用查询Wiki (ReferenceWiki, cn.18dao.net) 湖北百科 (wiki.027.cn) WikiZnanie Medpedia, WikiDoc WikiTimeScale Vikidia I've seen a few short discussions on Wikia wikis, but nothing conclusive... any updates there? Smaller wikis are more likely to be unaware of the relicensing decision or implications... and more likely to have been swayed by the license Wikipedia is using when making their initial decision. There are hundreds of them with great educational material, more than the dozens listed on meta so far. In particular, I expect there are many more Chinese, German, Japanese and Russian wikis out there... I hope we can manage to reach most of them. Recently Robert Rhode said: The migration is an incentive to other sites to also relicense. Given that, it behooves us to get moving early enough that other sites will also have time to react before the deadline. Seeing the changes we make will also give them a blueprint to what they may need to do. Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish to change. The second point makes sense. We do need more outreach; a long-term sitenotice for anons would be appropriate -- with links to how to relicense your own wiki, and what this means for reuse of Wikimedia material / importing your own into an article. Mainstream press coverage would be nice - perhaps after seeing which other large wikis are planning to switch as well. SJ -- * to be precise, when the license switch takes effect in mid-June, externally-sourced GFDL content will be made retroactively incompatible with Wikimedia projects back to November 2008. We have until August 1 to show partner sites how to relicense so that we remain compatible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Goodbye
Thanks for your fantastic work across the board. I do hope that this goodbye only marks an end of formal involvement, and that you can still come along from time to time. :) - Chris On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I would like to use this opportunity to say Goodbye to all of you, because my involvement with Wikimedia is now coming to an end. I could make this a long email, taking about my time here and giving my opinion and advice about the state and future of the Wikimedia movement, but I'd like to keep this fairly short and simple -- many of you have already received epic emails from me, you don't need another one ;-) Suffice to say, that the slightly more than 5 years that I have now been involved as non-anonymous participant in Wikipedia and Wikimedia have been very interesting to say the least - certainly a personal benefit for me, albeit one with ups and downs. In this comparably short time span, I saw the foundation mature from a rather abstract concept to a working and professionally staffed NGO with a broad networks of chapters all around the globe and I have learnt a lot in this process. I have thought long about whether I should remain involved with Wikimedia (I originally only resigned from Wikimedia CH because I am no longer in Switzerland since April and do not foresee being there other than for vacation in the next couple of years), but I decided in the end that I prefer a clear cut from everything, rather than just somewhat reducing my activity, and this year being for me personally the start of a new era anyways (new university, new country of residence etc.), it seems quite fitting to move on and start new pastimes, spend my time on new things. The little formalities: My tenure with Wikimedia CH ends on Wednesday, May 27th - my ChapCom and list admin positions end at the end of May and in general, I am fine with having all my access privileges (accounts on non-public wikis, list subscriptions etc.) removed or closed per the end of May. I wish you all the best -- from now on, I will again rely on what I read about Wikimedia's fate in the media, albeit taking it with a pinch of salt... Goodbye! Yours truly, Michael -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? Newyorkbrad On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit. The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3 expires on August 1 of this year. I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l because it is important and time sensitive. While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision, this has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia.(I myself had plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense -- even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.) Please help add to the list and contact those that you know: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing A selection of large GFDL wikis that have not confirmed plans to change their licenses: Enciclopedia Libre PlanetMath Sourcewatch, congresspedia the International Music Score Library Project 实用查询Wiki (ReferenceWiki, cn.18dao.net) 湖北百科 (wiki.027.cn) WikiZnanie Medpedia, WikiDoc WikiTimeScale Vikidia I've seen a few short discussions on Wikia wikis, but nothing conclusive... any updates there? Smaller wikis are more likely to be unaware of the relicensing decision or implications... and more likely to have been swayed by the license Wikipedia is using when making their initial decision. There are hundreds of them with great educational material, more than the dozens listed on meta so far. In particular, I expect there are many more Chinese, German, Japanese and Russian wikis out there... I hope we can manage to reach most of them. Recently Robert Rhode said: The migration is an incentive to other sites to also relicense. Given that, it behooves us to get moving early enough that other sites will also have time to react before the deadline. Seeing the changes we make will also give them a blueprint to what they may need to do. Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish to change. The second point makes sense. We do need more outreach; a long-term sitenotice for anons would be appropriate -- with links to how to relicense your own wiki, and what this means for reuse of Wikimedia material / importing your own into an article. Mainstream press coverage would be nice - perhaps after seeing which other large wikis are planning to switch as well. SJ -- * to be precise, when the license switch takes effect in mid-June, externally-sourced GFDL content will be made retroactively incompatible with Wikimedia projects back to November 2008. We have until August 1 to show partner sites how to relicense so that we remain compatible. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and recommends they convert, then we should be ok. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? Newyorkbrad Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been imported. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
as long as they convert /before/ the deadline... lodewijk 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and recommends they convert, then we should be ok. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Hello, The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit. The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3 expires on August 1 of this year. I am crossposting this from the licensing thread on foundation-l because it is important and time sensitive. While the intent behind the August 1 sunset clause provision was to offer[] all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision, this has not yet worked out in practice. Many GFDL-licensed wiki maintainers haven't looked at GFDL 1.3, aren't fully aware of Wikipedia's decision to relicense, and have no idea there are hard deadlines involved; nor have they though through the implications for their current contributions to / reuse of Wikipedia.(I myself had plans to organize an import of Medpedia content into WP before realizing that this is not possible unless they choose to relicense -- even though as of today both are GFDL wikis.) Please help add to the list and contact those that you know: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_relicensing So what does another wiki which uses Wikipedia material or sometimes imports material to Wikipedia have to do to accomplish relicensing? Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Hm, that was also the information I got :) Besides that, I personally feel that one week in the middle of the vacation is somewhat short for an internet election. Is there an urgent reason not to have it for two weeks? And good luck to count and confirm the votes within two days time! :o I'd find it impressive if that works so well in that tight schedule. Best, Lodewijk 2009/5/27 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de: Hello Philippe, I thought this year three candidates would be elected. Ting philippe wrote: Information concerning the election rules, candidacy, and suffrage/ voting requirements for the 2009 election to the Board of Trustees is now posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/en. I have copied it below, but for the wiki-links to work, you will - of course - need to be on meta. For the election committee, Philippe The 2009 elections to the Board of Trustees will be held between August 3rd and August 10th 2009. Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect one candidate to a two-year term which will expire in 2011. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons. The elections will be held securely on servers belonging to an independent third party (to be confirmed). Votes are secret and are only visible to the select few persons who audit and tally the election. Voters will submit ranked preferences by numbering candidates. The votes will be tallied using the Schulze methodto rank candidates based on the number of voters who prefer that candidate over other candidates. The Election Committee intends to announce the results on or before August 12th. Detailed results will be available. All times on this page are 00:00 (midnight) UTC. Contents [hide] 1 Information for voters 1.1 Requirements 1.2 How to vote 2 Information for candidates 2.1 Responsibilities as member of the Board 2.2 Prerequisites to candidacy 2.3 How to submit your candidacy 3 Organization 3.1 Time line 3.2 Translators [edit]Information for voters [edit]Requirements You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must: not be blocked; and not be a bot; and have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 1 July 2009. Special exceptions: the following may vote regardless of the above requirements: Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the office before 01 March 2009; current or former members of the Board of Trustees. [edit]How to vote If you are eligible to vote: Read the candidate presentations and decide which candidates you will support. Go to the wiki page Special:Securepoll on one wiki you qualify to vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki meta.wikimedia.org/, go to meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Securepoll. Follow the instructions on that page. [edit]Information for candidates A detailed description of the responsibilities of a member of the Board can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member. [edit]Responsibilities as member of the Board Being a Board member of a small organization like the Wikimedia Foundation, which faces immense challenges, can be time-consuming. The position is voluntary and unpaid. While board members are not expected to bring personal money to the organisation, they are welcome to help raise funds. Board members are expected to attend at least 3–4 meetings per year in person, attend Wikimania (our annual conference), and attend other scheduled online meetings and votes. The Board communicates intensively via e-mail, wiki, and IRC. Individual trustees sometimes participate in strategic meetings with other organizations and companies, relaying results back to Board and staff. Individual board members are expected to be involved in certain activities (such as fundraising, Wikimania, or auditing) and to help draft policies, charters and resolutions on such topics. Because Board members owe duties by virtue of their position, candidates who currently hold paid positions with the Wikimedia Foundation must resign from those position before they can be appointed to the Board of Trustees. This is to avoid potential conflicts of interests. [edit]Prerequisites to candidacy To be eligible as a candidate, you must: have made at least 600 edits before 01 March 2009 on any one registered account (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle) Thomas Dalton writes: The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years, Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will not have the chance to do so in the future. geni writes: Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been imported. A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the outreach page will show you that it's not true that most existing stuff of relevance has long been imported -- these are active communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in return. I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global publicity blitz. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: as long as they convert /before/ the deadline... Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert, but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work through their own red tape. SJ 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and recommends they convert, then we should be ok. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit. The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3 expires on August 1 of this year. So what does another wiki which uses Wikipedia material or sometimes imports material to Wikipedia have to do to accomplish relicensing? Fred, Simply announce the change and update all license details and notices on the site (which for a wiki can be quite a few). Appropedia has already gone through this in April; they are a good model, and are moving to a single-license wiki, which I would advise for most projects: http://www.appropedia.org/Appropedia:Licence-Migration-CC-BY-SA-3.0 SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not optimal, but I think it's highly likely. Who set the August 1 deadline and who has the power to extend it if needed? Newyorkbrad On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle) Thomas Dalton writes: The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years, Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will not have the chance to do so in the future. geni writes: Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been imported. A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the outreach page will show you that it's not true that most existing stuff of relevance has long been imported -- these are active communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in return. I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global publicity blitz. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: as long as they convert /before/ the deadline... Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert, but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work through their own red tape. SJ 2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: Thanks for circulating this. Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone? The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and recommends they convert, then we should be ok. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
2009/5/27 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP updates over months or years. (we are also gaining direct access to new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle) Thomas Dalton writes: The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will be dual licensed. Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is possible. This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only last so long. Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future revisions of the article are BY-SA only. Within a couple of years, Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical snapshot still available under GFDL). Third parties should not be fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a dual-licensed project forever. If they don't switch now, they will not have the chance to do so in the future. geni writes: Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been imported. A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the outreach page will show you that it's not true that most existing stuff of relevance has long been imported -- these are active communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in return. I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or importers. I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global publicity blitz. On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: as long as they convert /before/ the deadline... Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert, but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work through their own red tape. SJ Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move /after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is there any precendence on this is the US? Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com: The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not optimal, but I think it's highly likely. Who set the August 1 deadline and who has the power to extend it if needed? Newyorkbrad The Free Software Foundation did, in the 1.3 version of the GFDL. -- Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: Is an Elections Committee being appointed, or has one been? Newyorkbrad Yes, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Committee/en#Membership Regards, -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Goodbye
Michael Bimmler wrote: Dear all, I would like to use this opportunity to say Goodbye to all of you, because my involvement with Wikimedia is now coming to an end. I could make this a long email, taking about my time here and giving my opinion and advice about the state and future of the Wikimedia movement, but I'd like to keep this fairly short and simple -- many of you have already received epic emails from me, you don't need another one ;-) Suffice to say, that the slightly more than 5 years that I have now been involved as non-anonymous participant in Wikipedia and Wikimedia have been very interesting to say the least - certainly a personal benefit for me, albeit one with ups and downs. In this comparably short time span, I saw the foundation mature from a rather abstract concept to a working and professionally staffed NGO with a broad networks of chapters all around the globe and I have learnt a lot in this process. I have thought long about whether I should remain involved with Wikimedia (I originally only resigned from Wikimedia CH because I am no longer in Switzerland since April and do not foresee being there other than for vacation in the next couple of years), but I decided in the end that I prefer a clear cut from everything, rather than just somewhat reducing my activity, and this year being for me personally the start of a new era anyways (new university, new country of residence etc.), it seems quite fitting to move on and start new pastimes, spend my time on new things. The little formalities: My tenure with Wikimedia CH ends on Wednesday, May 27th - my ChapCom and list admin positions end at the end of May and in general, I am fine with having all my access privileges (accounts on non-public wikis, list subscriptions etc.) removed or closed per the end of May. I wish you all the best -- from now on, I will again rely on what I read about Wikimedia's fate in the media, albeit taking it with a pinch of salt... Goodbye! Yours truly, Michael I already expressed my feelings and thanks to you a few weeks ago. You are simply a wonderful person and I know our paths will cross again. A bientôt. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. And as to the number of seats... checking. I seem to recall that three seats is correct as well; I think the single seat statement came through with last years' text. Once I've confirmed that, we'll update the page. ___ Philippe On May 27, 2009, at 7:56 AM, effe iets anders wrote: Hm, that was also the information I got :) Besides that, I personally feel that one week in the middle of the vacation is somewhat short for an internet election. Is there an urgent reason not to have it for two weeks? And good luck to count and confirm the votes within two days time! :o I'd find it impressive if that works so well in that tight schedule. Best, Lodewijk 2009/5/27 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de: Hello Philippe, I thought this year three candidates would be elected. Ting philippe wrote: Information concerning the election rules, candidacy, and suffrage/ voting requirements for the 2009 election to the Board of Trustees is now posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/ en. I have copied it below, but for the wiki-links to work, you will - of course - need to be on meta. For the election committee, Philippe The 2009 elections to the Board of Trustees will be held between August 3rd and August 10th 2009. Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect one candidate to a two-year term which will expire in 2011. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons. The elections will be held securely on servers belonging to an independent third party (to be confirmed). Votes are secret and are only visible to the select few persons who audit and tally the election. Voters will submit ranked preferences by numbering candidates. The votes will be tallied using the Schulze methodto rank candidates based on the number of voters who prefer that candidate over other candidates. The Election Committee intends to announce the results on or before August 12th. Detailed results will be available. All times on this page are 00:00 (midnight) UTC. Contents [hide] 1 Information for voters 1.1 Requirements 1.2 How to vote 2 Information for candidates 2.1 Responsibilities as member of the Board 2.2 Prerequisites to candidacy 2.3 How to submit your candidacy 3 Organization 3.1 Time line 3.2 Translators [edit]Information for voters [edit]Requirements You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own). To qualify, this one account must: not be blocked; and not be a bot; and have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account); and have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 1 July 2009. Special exceptions: the following may vote regardless of the above requirements: Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the office before 01 March 2009; current or former members of the Board of Trustees. [edit]How to vote If you are eligible to vote: Read the candidate presentations and decide which candidates you will support. Go to the wiki page Special:Securepoll on one wiki you qualify to vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki meta.wikimedia.org/, go to meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Special:Securepoll. Follow the instructions on that page. [edit]Information for candidates A detailed description of the responsibilities of a member of the Board can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member . [edit]Responsibilities as member of the Board Being a Board member of a small organization like the Wikimedia Foundation, which faces immense challenges, can be time-consuming. The position is voluntary and unpaid. While board members are not expected to bring personal money to the organisation, they are welcome to help raise funds. Board members are expected to attend at least 3–4 meetings per year in person, attend Wikimania (our annual conference), and attend other scheduled online meetings and votes. The Board communicates intensively via e-mail, wiki, and IRC. Individual trustees sometimes participate in strategic meetings with other
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not starting in 2 weeks from now. Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (sin asunto)
Weird last administrative action to do but yeah...I blocked him/her. Cheers, Michael 2001/12/31 cecilca ceci...@infomed.sld.cu: Juan cesar martinez --- Red Telematica de Salud - Cuba CNICM - Infomed ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
2009/5/27 Angela bees...@gmail.com: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not starting in 2 weeks from now. Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. Angela indeed, thanks for clarifying :) Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little movement afterwards. ___ philippe On May 27, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Angela wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not starting in 2 weeks from now. Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
I'm certainly not empowered to say yes or no to that on my own, but I'll carry it back to the committee and see what the feeling there is. :-) Philippe ___ philippe On May 27, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: Would a 10-day period (including two weekends) be possible? Newyorkbrad On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:16 PM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little movement afterwards. ___ philippe On May 27, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Angela wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not starting in 2 weeks from now. Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
But last year was earlier :) Not in the very middle of the vacation. Lodewijk 2009/5/27 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com: Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little movement afterwards. ___ philippe On May 27, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Angela wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not starting in 2 weeks from now. Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
I'm certainly not empowered to say yes or no to that on my own, but I'll carry it back to the committee and see what the feeling there is. :-) That would be very much appreciated. Many of us will be traveling in August. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:16 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little movement afterwards. You mileage may vary of course, but the Licensing Update vote had roughly 60%, 25% and 15% of votes cast during each of its three weeks. I'd hate to have ignored 40% by stopping after only 1 week. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Have you discussed software requirements with developers? I'm not sure the new SecurePoll software is yet set up to allow for preferential voting (either on the input side or the tallying side). Also, we had a number of problems with tallying [1]. Some of which was a result of essentially overloading the software with 17000 votes, but even if you avoid that issue (for example by having stricter suffrage requirements), there are still some things to look out for. Which reminds me that I still need to go file some Bug reports... August is plenty of lead time to address these issues, but they shouldn't be kept to the last minute. -Robert Rohde [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/2009-May/000245.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
My understanding is that SecurePoll can handle the type of vote we're dealing with, but I'll certainly double-check based on your comments. Thanks for the heads-up. ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com Administrator, OTRS Volunteer [[en:User:Philippe]] On May 27, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: Have you discussed software requirements with developers? I'm not sure the new SecurePoll software is yet set up to allow for preferential voting (either on the input side or the tallying side). Also, we had a number of problems with tallying [1]. Some of which was a result of essentially overloading the software with 17000 votes, but even if you avoid that issue (for example by having stricter suffrage requirements), there are still some things to look out for. Which reminds me that I still need to go file some Bug reports... August is plenty of lead time to address these issues, but they shouldn't be kept to the last minute. -Robert Rohde [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/2009-May/000245.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
I have checked and can confirm that we are dealing with THREE seats. It was a cut/paste error (from last year's document to this year's), for which I take full responsibility. I'm updating the documentation now. :-) Philippe ___ Philippe Beaudette philippebeaude...@gmail.com On May 27, 2009, at 10:54 AM, philippe wrote: And as to the number of seats... checking. I seem to recall that three seats is correct as well; I think the single seat statement came through with last years' text. Once I've confirmed that, we'll update the page. ___ Philippe On May 27, 2009, at 7:56 AM, effe iets anders wrote: Hm, that was also the information I got :) ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com Administrator, OTRS Volunteer [[en:User:Philippe]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Hoi,SecurePoll is being localised at translatewiki.net. At this moment there are 35 languages ready for this vote and for 65 languages there is some localisation. Please check out if your community will be enabled by the software to vote. Thanks, GerardM ar العربية 100.00% 0.00% be-tarask Беларуская (тарашкевіца) 100.00% 0.00% bs Bosanski 100.00% 0.00% cs Česky 100.00% 0.00% cy Cymraeg 100.00% 0.00% de Deutsch 100.00% 0.00% dsb Dolnoserbski 100.00% 0.00% en English 100.00% 0.00% fr Français 100.00% 0.00% gl Galego 100.00% 0.00% gsw Alemannisch 100.00% 0.00% he עברית 100.00% 0.00% hsb Hornjoserbsce 100.00% 0.00% ia Interlingua 100.00% 0.00% id Bahasa Indonesia 100.00% 0.00% ja 日本語 100.00% 0.00% ko 한국어 100.00% 0.00% ksh Ripoarisch 100.00% 0.00% nds Plattdüütsch 100.00% 0.00% nl Nederlands 100.00% 0.00% no Norsk (bokmål) 100.00% 0.00% oc Occitan 100.00% 0.00% pap Papiamentu 100.00% 0.00% pl Polski 100.00% 0.00% pt Português 100.00% 0.00% pt-br Português do Brasil 100.00% 0.00% ru Русский 100.00% 0.00% sah Саха тыла 100.00% 0.00% sk Slovenčina 100.00% 0.00% tl Tagalog 100.00% 0.00% tr Türkçe 100.00% 0.00% vi Tiếng Việt 100.00% 0.00% yue 粵語 100.00% 0.00% zh-hans 中文(简体) 100.00% 0.00% zh-hant 中文(繁體) 100.00% 0.00% el Ελληνικά 97.70% 0.00% lb Lëtzebuergesch 93.10% 0.00% li Limburgs 91.95% 0.00% vec Vèneto 86.21% 0.00% ca Català 83.91% 0.00% hu Magyar 75.86% 0.00% it Italiano 75.86% 0.00% eo Esperanto 73.56% 0.00% es Español 73.56% 0.00% sv Svenska 67.82% 0.00% ms Bahasa Melayu 59.77% 0.00% da Dansk 57.47% 2.30% nn Norsk (nynorsk) 57.47% 0.00% fa فارسی 27.59% 0.00% fi Suomi 27.59% 0.00% qqq Message documentation 27.59% 0.00% et Eesti 26.44% 1.15% de-formal Deutsch (Sie-Form) 19.54% 0.00% bg Български 17.24% 0.00% th ไทย 16.09% 0.00% ur اردو 12.64% 1.15% te తలుగు 11.49% 0.00% za Vahcuengh 11.49% 0.00% vep Vepsan kel' 10.34% 0.00% mk Македонски 4.60% 0.00% roa-tara Tarandíne 4.60% 0.00% ga Gaeilge 3.45% 0.00% nds-nl Nedersaksisch 3.45% 0.00% sr-ec ћирилица 1.15% 0.00% zh-hk 中文(香港) 1.15% 0.00% 2009/5/27 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com My understanding is that SecurePoll can handle the type of vote we're dealing with, but I'll certainly double-check based on your comments. Thanks for the heads-up. ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com Administrator, OTRS Volunteer [[en:User:Philippe]] On May 27, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: Have you discussed software requirements with developers? I'm not sure the new SecurePoll software is yet set up to allow for preferential voting (either on the input side or the tallying side). Also, we had a number of problems with tallying [1]. Some of which was a result of essentially overloading the software with 17000 votes, but even if you avoid that issue (for example by having stricter suffrage requirements), there are still some things to look out for. Which reminds me that I still need to go file some Bug reports... August is plenty of lead time to address these issues, but they shouldn't be kept to the last minute. -Robert Rohde [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/2009-May/000245.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
quote who=Samuel Klein date=Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:05:10AM -0400 There are hundreds of educational sites with excellent material that have chosen their current GFDL license in order to be compatible with Wikipedia. Some of them will not be able to decide to switch licensing terms by August 1; others do not qualify for the license-switching option in the first place. We should make a serious devoted effort to reach all of them -- including informing readers about what is going on and how they can help preserve compatibility of license with their own sites. This is very important. Wikis licensed under the GFDL after August 1st will not be compatible with Wikimedia wikis. Those wikis will sometimes be able to pull from Wikimedia projects but will never be able to merge their content into Wikimedia wikis. This is despite the fact that many of these wikis chose the GFDL specifically to gain two-way compatibility with our wikis. As the group with the most to lose and as the group that introduced the change at issue, the foundation and its broader community should devote as much time as possible to this issue in the next two months before it is too late. I'm happy to see that work is already being coordinated here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach As many people as possible should join in this effort and spread the word. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc wrote: I'm happy to see that work is already being coordinated here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach As many people as possible should join in this effort and spread the word. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14769 includes a list of things people can do, which I'm happy to amend. And anything Creative Commons should do to help, please let me know, on- or offlist. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc wrote: This is very important. Wikis licensed under the GFDL after August 1st will not be compatible with Wikimedia wikis. Those wikis will sometimes be able to pull from Wikimedia projects but will never be able to merge their content into Wikimedia wikis. Unless the WMF decides to switch back to GFDL only. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc wrote: This is very important. Wikis licensed under the GFDL after August 1st will not be compatible with Wikimedia wikis. Those wikis will sometimes be able to pull from Wikimedia projects but will never be able to merge their content into Wikimedia wikis. Unless the WMF decides to switch back to GFDL only. And arguably, even that isn't required. Sure, any CC-BY-SA-only content would be in violation of the GFDL, but that's true regardless of what the WMF says. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Hoi, The numbers do not read that well. Try this in stead.. http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Temp Thanks, GerardM 2009/5/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com Hoi,SecurePoll is being localised at translatewiki.net. At this moment there are 35 languages ready for this vote and for 65 languages there is some localisation. Please check out if your community will be enabled by the software to vote. Thanks, GerardM ar العربية 100.00% 0.00% be-tarask Беларуская (тарашкевіца) 100.00% 0.00% bs Bosanski 100.00% 0.00% cs Česky 100.00% 0.00% cy Cymraeg 100.00% 0.00% de Deutsch 100.00% 0.00% dsb Dolnoserbski 100.00% 0.00% en English 100.00% 0.00% fr Français 100.00% 0.00% gl Galego 100.00% 0.00% gsw Alemannisch 100.00% 0.00% he עברית 100.00% 0.00% hsb Hornjoserbsce 100.00% 0.00% ia Interlingua 100.00% 0.00% id Bahasa Indonesia 100.00% 0.00% ja 日本語 100.00% 0.00% ko 한국어 100.00% 0.00% ksh Ripoarisch 100.00% 0.00% nds Plattdüütsch 100.00% 0.00% nl Nederlands 100.00% 0.00% no Norsk (bokmål) 100.00% 0.00% oc Occitan 100.00% 0.00% pap Papiamentu 100.00% 0.00% pl Polski 100.00% 0.00% pt Português 100.00% 0.00% pt-br Português do Brasil 100.00% 0.00% ru Русский 100.00% 0.00% sah Саха тыла 100.00% 0.00% sk Slovenčina 100.00% 0.00% tl Tagalog 100.00% 0.00% tr Türkçe 100.00% 0.00% vi Tiếng Việt 100.00% 0.00% yue 粵語 100.00% 0.00% zh-hans 中文(简体) 100.00% 0.00% zh-hant 中文(繁體) 100.00% 0.00% el Ελληνικά 97.70% 0.00% lb Lëtzebuergesch 93.10% 0.00% li Limburgs 91.95% 0.00% vec Vèneto 86.21% 0.00% ca Català 83.91% 0.00% hu Magyar 75.86% 0.00% it Italiano 75.86% 0.00% eo Esperanto 73.56% 0.00% es Español 73.56% 0.00% sv Svenska 67.82% 0.00% ms Bahasa Melayu 59.77% 0.00% da Dansk 57.47% 2.30% nn Norsk (nynorsk) 57.47% 0.00% fa فارسی 27.59% 0.00% fi Suomi 27.59% 0.00% qqq Message documentation 27.59% 0.00% et Eesti 26.44% 1.15% de-formal Deutsch (Sie-Form) 19.54% 0.00% bg Български 17.24% 0.00% th ไทย 16.09% 0.00% ur اردو 12.64% 1.15% te తలుగు 11.49% 0.00% za Vahcuengh 11.49% 0.00% vep Vepsan kel' 10.34% 0.00% mk Македонски 4.60% 0.00% roa-tara Tarandíne 4.60% 0.00% ga Gaeilge 3.45% 0.00% nds-nl Nedersaksisch 3.45% 0.00% sr-ec ћирилица 1.15% 0.00% zh-hk 中文(香港) 1.15% 0.00% 2009/5/27 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com My understanding is that SecurePoll can handle the type of vote we're dealing with, but I'll certainly double-check based on your comments. Thanks for the heads-up. ___ philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com Administrator, OTRS Volunteer [[en:User:Philippe]] On May 27, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: Have you discussed software requirements with developers? I'm not sure the new SecurePoll software is yet set up to allow for preferential voting (either on the input side or the tallying side). Also, we had a number of problems with tallying [1]. Some of which was a result of essentially overloading the software with 17000 votes, but even if you avoid that issue (for example by having stricter suffrage requirements), there are still some things to look out for. Which reminds me that I still need to go file some Bug reports... August is plenty of lead time to address these issues, but they shouldn't be kept to the last minute. -Robert Rohde [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/2009-May/000245.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election
Robert Rohde wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:16 AM, philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little movement afterwards. You mileage may vary of course, but the Licensing Update vote had roughly 60%, 25% and 15% of votes cast during each of its three weeks. I'd hate to have ignored 40% by stopping after only 1 week. The ticket purchase seems like a lame excuse for cutting down the voting period. Let the candidates buy their own tickets early, and the winners can be reimbursed when they get to Buenos Aires. This year's Wikimania is more than a month later than last year's. By having the election roughly at the same time as last year's there would be more than ample time for three weeks of voting. The voting members should not be deprived of voting opportunities because of the election committee's failure to recognize this. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not optimal, but I think it's highly likely. That's a reasonable expectation. People who are not intimately involved with the arcana of licensing will just turn off and ignore the distinctions. Others may just see the rush to get everyone changed the short period between WMF's adoption of this switch and the deadline date as an attempt by the big kid on the block to push its policies on others. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
effe iets anders wrote: Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move /after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is there any precendence on this is the US? I doubt it. I think there is very little precedent anywhere about the legal effect of these licences. Before a judge renders a decision the case has to get into court in the first place, and I find it difficult to imagine who would have the standing to start such a case. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not optimal, but I think it's highly likely. That's a reasonable expectation. People who are not intimately involved with the arcana of licensing will just turn off and ignore the distinctions. Others may just see the rush to get everyone changed the short period between WMF's adoption of this switch and the deadline date as an attempt by the big kid on the block to push its policies on others. We should certainly take care not to push anyone. I would be delighted to see sites that do not wish to change sticking with the GFDL - that's excellent, and it is a great license for people who use it intentionally. What I mind is sites realizing in half a year the implications of Wikimedia's switch, and despising the effect it has had on them, if they chose the GFDL (and perhaps put up with some of its quirks) simply for WP compatibility. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
