I'm happy to hear this. As a member of the Chapters Committee, I look
forward to being helpful.
Ray
On 08/27/11 5:29 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:
> The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
> pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
> the vi
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:29 AM, CasteloBranco
wrote:
> The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
> pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
> the views of all Brazilians who are interested on it. We do know a legal
> structure is now essen
The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
the views of all Brazilians who are interested on it. We do know a legal
structure is now essential, and we are developing the legal structure
(rewriting
On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.
I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any
actual disagreement.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@list
On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
>>> they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
>>> organization second. But the WMF shares in the
On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard:
>> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
>> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
>> locally.
> Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
> b
I find this all very sad. Who are the Brazilian volunteers, and how
effectively do they represent the views of those Brazilians who are
truly interested in Wikipedia in their country. The simple fact is that
an agreement entered into by an ad hoc group binds no-one except the
individuals that
I extended my Wikimania talk and, after a lot of technical problems,
I've finally managed to create videos from the presentations.
I uploaded the first couple of videos. Not all of them are
interesting, here are the notes for those who are interested just in
the substance:
* Missing Wikipedias 1/7
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
>> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
>> take on this, so I'll ke
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
> locally.
Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
but then Ting clarified that no such decision had
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
> WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
> requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
> particular jurisdictions wil
On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
>> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
>> take on this, so I'll keep it general
On 26 August 2011 12:35, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
>> form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
>> the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
>> Everything remains.
On 26 August 2011 02:15, David Goodman wrote:
> make it plainer, that people who find Wikipedia articles appropriate
> for advocating their religious beliefs may use the content for that
> purpose, to that the WMF should find some universally acceptable sets
> of spiritual beliefs, and use its
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 27 August 2011 09:04, wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> > This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
>>> > commons
On 27 August 2011 20:52, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Not really. It's mentioned on page 9 of the strategic plan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf
The mention in the July report is just saying that things have sta
Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, CasteloBranco <
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Dan
>
> It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the "Brazil
> Catalyst" section).
>
> [1]
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_
Yes, Dan
It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the "Brazil
Catalyst" section).
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_July_2011#Brazil_Catalyst
Castelo
[[:m:User:Castelobranco]]
Wikimedia Brasil
Em 27/08/2011 16:20, Dan Rosenthal escreveu:
> Uh did I
On 27 August 2011 20:20, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Uh did I miss something?
>
> 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
> stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
> Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the
> search
Uh did I miss something?
2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the
search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a
p
For your information
The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was
collaboratively written.
After the Brazilian participants shared their experience on what
happened in Haifa, the whole community had one week to discuss and edit
the content, which is now available on
> 2011/8/11 Jimmy Wales
>
>> On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
>>> centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
>>> will make chapters ineffective.
>>
>> Chapters are not being centralized. I
It is absolutely not part of the resolution, nor is it in the design plans
that I've seen. My understanding is that it works like current
categorization, in that anyone can participate.
pb
___
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x
On 27 August 2011 09:04, wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
>> > commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative
or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at
every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who
should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community
25 matches
Mail list logo
