Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:23:51 Erik Moeller wrote: > > 2009/1/20 geni : > > > 1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the > > > page. > > > > CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/21 Erik Moeller : > > CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model > > is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use > > attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Jimmy Wales wrote: >> Austin Hair wrote: >> >>> Every chapter has unique >>> considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be >>> it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're >>> concerned, there's no such thing as a secon

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Nathan wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > >> 2009/1/20 Ting Chen : >>> Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined >>> geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter >>> beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. >> It w

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

I apology. I'll use the proper terminology in the future. The confusion mostly came from the fact I had absolutely not understood that chapters at the national level, or chapter at any other level would have exactly the same rights and roles than the currently existing chapters. I did not mean t

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Mike Godwin wrote: > Florence writes: > >>> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area >>> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and >>> names. >> Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. >> The very largest majority of chapters

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:23:51 Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/1/20 geni : > > 1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the > > page. > > CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model > is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

2009/1/21 Erik Moeller : > CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model > is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use > attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) > and 4(c)(iii). 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

2009/1/20 geni : > 1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the page. CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with

Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

2009/1/21 Erik Moeller : > This is a request for comment. I've posted a draft proposal for the > license update here: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update > > It is not intended to be final, but I hope we can arrive at a final > version by February 1. > > We would appreciate question

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

2009/1/20 Anthony : > Is the question clear? Maybe I should be even more specific. How would one > go about using content from Citizendium in Wikipedia, if Wikipedia > relicenses content under CC-BY-SA? How would a third party go about using > the combined work? How would the attribution rights

[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

This is a request for comment. I've posted a draft proposal for the license update here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update It is not intended to be final, but I hope we can arrive at a final version by February 1. We would appreciate questions, comments, feedback. If there are obvi

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Nathan, a sub national chapter does not preclude a national chapter. I am unable to foresee a national chapter in places where we are implementing sub national chapters, making this a moot point. From: Nathan To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Andrew Whitworth wrote: > I suspect it's not "will never happen", but instead is "should only > happen after very careful consideration and agreement". If there is a > country with an existing sub-national chapter and an organization > effort to create a national one, I think we would all suggest t

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that > such chapters might be permitted to form anyway: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters > (Question: "Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2009/1/20 Ting Chen : > > Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined > > geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter > > beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. > > It was my understandin

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/20 Ting Chen : > Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined > geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter > beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that such chapters might

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/20 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that. > It is calling a spade a spade. > > Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that > you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did so

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > [snip] The one thing > were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about > jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the > difference. > Could you rephrase this? I've re-read it about 5-6 tim

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that. It is calling a spade a spade. Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did some great things. I love to learn the go

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/20 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > I doubt that the NYC has the ability to negotiate commercial deals for the > whole of the USA. Also given that the organisation of the Foundation has > already made sure that a US citizen can give tax free to the WMF, there is > no need for the NYC to arrange th

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not? What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type rather than one that is inacc

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, I doubt that the NYC has the ability to negotiate commercial deals for the whole of the USA. Also given that the organisation of the Foundation has already made sure that a US citizen can give tax free to the WMF, there is no need for the NYC to arrange this, I am sure there are more things th

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to > make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five > people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort. 5 people i

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

> Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of > the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not > want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not > to use the "sub-chapter" word, he is right in that the board n

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort. One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl

2009/1/20 Jan Luca : > Aber, wenn kein Steward von einen der Wikiversity-Projekte kommt und auch > keiner dort mitarbeitet, ist es schwer das Projekt zu beurteilen, da man > keinen "Live"-Mitarbeiter hat. > > Ich weiß, dass Stewards global sind und auf alle Projekte zugreifen können. > Yes, you ar

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl

Aber, wenn kein Steward von einen der Wikiversity-Projekte kommt und auch keiner dort mitarbeitet, ist es schwer das Projekt zu beurteilen, da man keinen "Live"-Mitarbeiter hat. Ich weiß, dass Stewards global sind und auf alle Projekte zugreifen können. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Luca -Ursp

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jan Luca wrote: > Hallo, > > bei der dem Durchschauen der Stward-Liste ist mir aufgefallen, dass kein > Steward sich besonders in einen der Wikiversity(ich habe mir speziell de.WV > und en.WV angeschaut) aktiv ist. > > Leider können einige der Mitarbeiter nicht kan

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

2009/1/20 Anthony : >> Assuming a large number of authors on Citizendium. Use the export >> function there to provide the file in a useful format and reactivate >> the import function on en to export it (at a pinch is should be >> possible to put together a script that can grab the relevant >> info

[Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl

Hallo, bei der dem Durchschauen der Stward-Liste ist mir aufgefallen, dass kein Steward sich besonders in einen der Wikiversity(ich habe mir speziell de.WV und en.WV angeschaut) aktiv ist. Leider können einige der Mitarbeiter nicht kandidieren, da viel einen Zeitmangel besitzen oder andere

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/20 Anthony : > > That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an > > answer from Erik or Mike anyway. > > > > It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works > under > > CC-BY-SA is allegedly th

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

How about we just close this thread. We do not need to rehash the debate, it is a dead horse. From: Dan Rosenthal To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59:39 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters) Flore

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

2009/1/20 Anthony : > That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an > answer from Erik or Mike anyway. > > It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works under > CC-BY-SA is allegedly the main reason for the relicensing. > > Is the question clear?

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Anthony wrote: > One problem with the URLs you gave me is that they don't seem to be very > up-to-date. For instance, in > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Reusing_Citizendium_Content it says > "After Wikipedia finalizes its decision to allow relicensing of its

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence and Gerard, Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term "sub-chapters"? If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and "what does a chapter do" and "Why does the US need this" and other such dead horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminolo

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for > me, a German. I did not > hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this > English word mean? Any > sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated > to a city than > to a country

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florence Devouard wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: >> Florence Devouard wrote: >>> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not >>> subchapters. >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the >>> name does not clarify

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence Devouard wrote: > Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? There are no sub-chapters. The proper term is "sub-national chapters". And they are chapters as much as any other chapter. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

Thanks Larry. That does indeed answer my questions from the point of view of Citizendium content, at least if I'm reading those URLs correctly, in that: Individual Citizendium authors are not concerned about being individually attributed, and are content to have their contributions attributed as

[Foundation-l] The Entities in an International Movement. Was: Re: Board resolutions (chapters)

Hello Ting, Well, it is really difficult to know how the Esperanto community or, say, the Red Cross (and Red Crescent) Movement would organize themselves if they would come to life in these days. Maybe it would not be that different. Let my lay out the matters with regard to different entities in

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

> In other words, the chapters are not, in general, agents delegated to > do business on behalf of the Foundation. Instead, they are independent > organizations who do outreach and education in service of the projects > and the larger Wikimedia movement. Well put, that's pretty much the way I see

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not > hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any > sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than > to a country? A chapter is a sub-division of an organisation. I'm

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Nathan wrote: > Suppose the Hong Kong chapter had initially declared itself the Chinese > chapter - would that forever preclude the creation of other, separate > chapters within the geographical territory of China? That presents a > first-past-the-post incentive,

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, The city of Moscow would be refused a chapter. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Nathan > Ziko, > > The United States previously had no chapter, no organization in which > members of the community could gain membership and organize events, > activities and pursuits independent from the legal o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, Please understand what a chapter could do, should do when you take the projects out of the equation for a moment. The WMF organisation, and the chapters are part of that, ENABLE the projects. Border lines are typically where jurisdictions start and end. If that does not make sense to you, we a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Andrew's comment brings up a separate, but serious, issue. Suppose the Hong Kong chapter had initially declared itself the Chinese chapter - would that forever preclude the creation of other, separate chapters within the geographical territory of China? That presents a first-past-the-post incentiv

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Ting writes: > yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the > reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and > maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We > want > that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations do

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Thank you folks for the explanations, some things are getting clearer to me. So "NCY chapter" is a bad naming, I see. I believed that it was not defined geographically well, because I saw the map saying " Approximate region of operations of Wikimedia New York City

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Sam Johnston wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were > released > > somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into > Wikipedia? > > How will their right to a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Andrew Whitworth wrote: > 3) It does not represent a "country". It also doesn't represent a > language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us. > It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important > to us. There is one more thing that is important however,

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > That doesn't change my point, it's just a matter of scale... Suppose > there's a chapter in Georgia, and one for Kentucky and Tennessee. Then > some people come around and start on a chapter for the southeast. > That's going to be a quite str

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Ziko, The United States previously had no chapter, no organization in which members of the community could gain membership and organize events, activities and pursuits independent from the legal organization of Wikimedia. The state of New York has 20 million people. What country in Europe or anyw

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence writes: >> The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area >> negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and >> names. > > Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. > The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language committee" > the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub > off does not even exist any more. > > While I do think that the New York sub c

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of >> chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a >> Monterey County chapter, and then people f

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the "language committee" the "language sub-committee". This while the committee it should be a sub off does not even exist any more. While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will even do better then some chapter

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Can we stop using the words "sub-chapter"? It implies something that doesn't exist - there are sub-national chapters, which is descriptive of their geographic coverage and nothing else. Sub-chapter seems to suggest some grouping less than a full chapter, or subordinate to a chapter, and that isn't

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather > than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are > registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly > defined (yes, I'm sure there is a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the >> geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of >> chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are >> defined and measured by their

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of > chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a > Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and > a few smaller cities come togeth

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/20 Andre Engels : > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth > wrote: > >> Two answers to this question: >> 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the >> moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it >> may be possible in the fut

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

> New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the > geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of > chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are > defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say > that a nation must

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote: > Two answers to this question: > 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the > moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it > may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share s

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes > France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia > Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the > 50 states, and als

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Delphine Ménard wrote: > [OT] > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard >> wrote: >>> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :) >> I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? > > For Germans,

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Ziko van Dijk wrote: > First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a > chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about > this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons. > > Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French,

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

> The Board (in a French association) has been mandated by the General > Assembly to make the decisions concerning the association. As such, it > is totally in the realm of its power to delegate someone to > "represent" the association at a meeting and even "make decisions" on > its behalf. The onl

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth : > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: >> Hoi, >> What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be >> obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts >> content wherever you like. >> Thanks, > >

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons. Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes France, Germ

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be > obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts > content wherever you like. > Thanks, Two answers to this question: 1) WMNYC do

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

[OT] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: >> It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :) > > I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, whic

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you > do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active > and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and > assess the performance of chapters acco

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: >> If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with >> organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority >> would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in >> certain areas among the bo

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and assess the performance of chapters accordingly. I completely agree that

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Florence Devouard wrote: > Ting Chen wrote: > >> Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between >>> Belgium and the Netherlands. >>> >> I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely >> that

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Sebastian Moleski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard > wrote: >>> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >>> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a >>> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter.

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Ting Chen wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> Hoi, >> The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between >> Belgium and the Netherlands. > I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely > that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community sup

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, When the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is because of a fear that a commercial organisation plays one chapter against another, I fail to agree that this is a good reason. Obviously chapters are involved in such negotiations, that is not the point. I am quite ok with chapters being di

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial > nastiness Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another > USA (sub)-chapter have. Yes, inside their own areas. > What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? > Why,

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: > It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? >> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >> the realm of possibility for a chapter (boar

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial nastiness Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another USA (sub)-chapter have. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? How do you make commercial organisations split along "our" lines ? As I l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Just to look at this from another angle, what reasoning was there to limit the geographical extent of the new york chapter to the new york city metropolitan area. Why not the entire state of new york? Does having this NYC chapter prevent the existence of a chapter representing the whole state o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between > Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't se

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wrote: > What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were released > somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into Wikipedia? > How will their right to attribution be respected? Is this allowance of > "reference by histo

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41, Florence Devouard wrote: > Sebastian Moleski wrote: >> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a >> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. > > Thi

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: >> I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within >> the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a >> representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. > > This should be checked by a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

It is interesting how the "power distance" thing is playing out here. :) On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:22, Sebastian Moleski wrote: >> Florence wrote: Sebastian wrote: > I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers > increase, we have to change the format of some of the events duri

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Sebastian Moleski wrote: > Hi Florence, > >> First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for >> discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. >> Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. >> But every year will become more a

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hi Florence, > First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for > discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. > Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. > But every year will become more and more difficult. How many peopl

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Guillaume Paumier wrote: > Hello, > > [it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on] > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard > wrote: >> We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. >> Already, because of the number of chapters, it is reco

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hello, [it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > > We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. > Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only > one representant o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more > equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is > room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will > each subchapter have one as well

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

I was wondering myself. I thought this information would be in the FAQ, but it is not. Two questions. First, the annual meeting. We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come t

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Hoi, Is it like in "Animal farm" that all countries are equal but some are more equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will each subchapter have one as well ?? Originally the notion of a c

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the > Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what > is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Well, there are two organizations, but one o

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an > USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get > all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not > that strong either, we could hav

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other > subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a > person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational > chapter other than

Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)

Michael Snow wrote: > Florence Devouard wrote: >> For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not >> subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And >> the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been >> mandatory that names used be of t

  1   2   >