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] Licensing resolution
--- On Sat, 5/23/09, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: From: effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:00 AM 2009/5/23 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm: I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere - but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that. What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons? depends on the language you're talking about :) en.WS is like commons. I imagine most WS are. The editors are not the copyright holders 95% of the time there, so the license is not up to them. The background stuff on the site and any notes written by editors to introduce the texts, will be relicensed I suppose. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
also, Dutch Wikibooks made the switch for all new content after 15 April 2007 already for the dual license CC-BY-SA / GFDL, so nothing new here for them, except that old content will finally /all/ be dual licensed :) (no more exceptions on pages with older versions). A big notice in the general sitenotice for all visitors might be worth while btw to reach all re-users. best, lodewijk 2009/5/22 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com Congratulations to everyone involved in the effort to get this happening! It's been a long road - a longer road than many of us have seen. Just a quick point I'd like to raise about Wikinews in relation to the license change. Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this license change will not be affecting Wikinews. As a result I think it's important that we don't say in any of our public statements on this topic all Wikimedia projects are changing Instead I suggest that we use phrases like all GFDL content or All relevant Wikimedia projects or something like that. The board statement is ambiguous on this point. It says ...to relicense the Wikimedia sites... but the Wikimedia Foundation blog said the Wikimedia Foundation will proceed with the implementation of a CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual license system *on all of our project’s* content. [my emphasis]. The licensing update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update page on Meta does specify that we are only talking about content which is currently GFDL: to make all content currently distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License (with “later version” clause) additionally available under CC-BY-SA 3.0, as explicitly allowed through the latest version of the GFDL; Once again, congratulations everyone on the hard work and diligent effort on this complicated issue. -Liam [[witty lama]] p.s. I suppose the same point goes for Wikimedia Commons which includes a whole variety of licenses including much in the Public Domain. wittylama.com/blog Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia ___ 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
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously passed the following resolution: Great news everybody. This is indeed an important day for free culture. I also feel humbled by the fact that you choose my birthday as the date for the transition ;) -- Hay ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an abundance of good information. Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather than June 15? I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). 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. SJ On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously passed the following resolution: Great news everybody. This is indeed an important day for free culture. I also feel humbled by the fact that you choose my birthday as the date for the transition ;) -- Hay ___ 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
2009/5/22 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an abundance of good information. Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather than June 15? I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). I don't understand. Why do other sites need to switch before us? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an abundance of good information. Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather than June 15? I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). 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. Three points: 1) We'd like to have all our copyright statements, terms of use, image templates, and whatever else updated before the August 1st deadline. That way there is no ambiguity about whether content was relicensed in a timely fashion. Doing that, including the various translations, will require a significant lead time. 2) 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. 3) Content importing from GFDL sites (which are not also CC-BY-SA, and do not get relicensed by their owners) is already impossible now. One of the provisions of the relicensing is that externally published content (i.e. material originally published somewhere other than a WMF wiki) can only be relicensed if it was already in our site before November 1, 2008. Any GFDL text imported after that date will probably have to be deleted. This doesn't happen very often on the Wikipedias, but it is a bigger concern for Wikibooks and Wikisource. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On 2009-05-22 17:57, Stephen Bain wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Liam Wyattliamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this license change will not be affecting Wikinews. Wikinews only switched to CC-BY-2.5 in September 2005. Before that many versions required contributions to be released into the public domain, three (don't ask me which three) used the GFDL, and ja used CC-BY-2.1-ja. Swedish Wikinews was amongst those who used GFDL in the early stages, but switched to cc-by at July 1, 2005, as far as I can find in the archives. \Mike [http://sv.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Copyrightoldid=5550] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere - but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that. -Mike On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 07:36 -0700, Robert Rohde wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an abundance of good information. Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather than June 15? I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). 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. Three points: 1) We'd like to have all our copyright statements, terms of use, image templates, and whatever else updated before the August 1st deadline. That way there is no ambiguity about whether content was relicensed in a timely fashion. Doing that, including the various translations, will require a significant lead time. 2) 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. 3) Content importing from GFDL sites (which are not also CC-BY-SA, and do not get relicensed by their owners) is already impossible now. One of the provisions of the relicensing is that externally published content (i.e. material originally published somewhere other than a WMF wiki) can only be relicensed if it was already in our site before November 1, 2008. Any GFDL text imported after that date will probably have to be deleted. This doesn't happen very often on the Wikipedias, but it is a bigger concern for Wikibooks and Wikisource. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm: I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere - but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that. What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons? (I would have thought a freer choice of licenses would have been feasible, since works are likely to stay separate. I'd have particularly thought this the case for Wikisource.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons? Wikibooks is GFDL-only same as WP. WS is, I believe, more focused on PD material (but I seem to remember they would allow GFDL source too). --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
Robert - thanks for pointing that out. All the more reason to ask any such sites to consider a dual license if not a relicense of their collected works. That does remove the incentive to wait. I have been in favor of the change, but was surprised to realize we had almost come to the end of the window for any site to so relicense. Thanks to everyone who has been emailing their friends and other projects about the licensing switch. We need to work on a how-to-relicense guide for the uninitiated. SJ On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an abundance of good information. Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather than June 15? I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses), but it will also no longer be possible for currently GFDL massively-collaborative sites to choose to make the same switchover that we are making (the GFDL provision is only valid until August 1). 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. Three points: 1) We'd like to have all our copyright statements, terms of use, image templates, and whatever else updated before the August 1st deadline. That way there is no ambiguity about whether content was relicensed in a timely fashion. Doing that, including the various translations, will require a significant lead time. 2) 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. 3) Content importing from GFDL sites (which are not also CC-BY-SA, and do not get relicensed by their owners) is already impossible now. One of the provisions of the relicensing is that externally published content (i.e. material originally published somewhere other than a WMF wiki) can only be relicensed if it was already in our site before November 1, 2008. Any GFDL text imported after that date will probably have to be deleted. This doesn't happen very often on the Wikipedias, but it is a bigger concern for Wikibooks and Wikisource. -Robert Rohde ___ 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
Wikibooks uses GFDL. We do have some revisions which may be multi-licensed, but it's probably not safe to assume that any books are entirely multi-licensed (though some do make that claim). -Mike On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 02:12 +0100, David Gerard wrote: 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm: I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere - but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that. What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons? (I would have thought a freer choice of licenses would have been feasible, since works are likely to stay separate. I'd have particularly thought this the case for Wikisource.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be able to import materials currently under the GFDL (which will become impossible as soon as we decide to switch over licenses) That became impossible November 1, 2008. Anything imported into Wikipedia after that date is not eligible for relicensing by the WMF. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously passed the following resolution: Resolved that: Whereas the Wikimedia community, in a project-wide vote, has expressed very strong support for changing the licensing terms of Wikimedia sites, and whereas the Board of Trustees has previously adopted a license update resolution requesting that such a change be made possible, the Board hereby declares its intent to implement these changes. Accordingly, the Wikimedia Foundation exercises its option under Version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License to relicense the Wikimedia sites as Massive Multiauthor Collaborations under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license, effective June 15, 2009. The Board of Trustees hereby instructs the Executive Director to have all Wikimedia licensing terms updated and terms of use implemented consistent with the proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
2009/5/21 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously passed the following resolution: Resolved that: Whereas the Wikimedia community, in a project-wide vote, has expressed very strong support for changing the licensing terms of Wikimedia sites, and whereas the Board of Trustees has previously adopted a license update resolution requesting that such a change be made possible, the Board hereby declares its intent to implement these changes. Accordingly, the Wikimedia Foundation exercises its option under Version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License to relicense the Wikimedia sites as Massive Multiauthor Collaborations under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license, effective June 15, 2009. The Board of Trustees hereby instructs the Executive Director to have all Wikimedia licensing terms updated and terms of use implemented consistent with the proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update Woo-hoo! :-) Once again, a big *thank you* to the licensing committee for administering the voting process. All the volunteers on the committee have been hugely helpful. I want to especially mention Robert Rohde, without whom the result probably wouldn't have been ready last week. The work of the LiCom doesn't end here - we'll now develop a strategy and checklist to update all the relevant licensing terms. There are also a couple of open questions that we should discuss a bit further before implementing the change, in particular, the best process and policies for handling externally created CC-BY-SA content to be imported into our projects. I'll post more on that very soon. This is a big day for free culture. :-) All best, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
Erik Moeller wrote: Once again, a big *thank you* to the licensing committee for administering the voting process. All the volunteers on the committee have been hugely helpful. I want to especially mention Robert Rohde, without whom the result probably wouldn't have been ready last week. I would also like to thank the committee, along with SPI, for helping with the vote. And really, there are *a lot* of people who have earned thanks for their efforts in bringing us to this point. At the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman (obviously) along with Benjamin Mako Hill. At Creative Commons, Larry Lessig, Mike Linksvayer, and Diane Peters. Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center. Of our own staff, Erik himself and Mike Godwin in particular. And by singling out any names here, I know that I must already be neglecting others that I really ought to mention, but I may not personally be aware of the depth of their contribution to the process. So let me conclude by thanking everyone who participated in the process, including especially all of you who voted. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
