Hoi,
Sorry Pete, there is not.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about
> the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated,
> though, as Denny's message was intended to shed
In an effort to offer resolution to what Pete said below regarding Doc James’
removal, along with extending some form of compensation to Doc James and those
of us in the community who elected him, I strongly believe his Board position
should be immediately reinstated citing wrongful dismissal.
A good idea, User:Wittylama. I'm happy to see this type of collaboration.
Thanks for the heads up, Seddon. Interested to see what we will discover.
Warmly,
/a
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Niel, I saw, but the fact that WMF is targeting specific articles about
> proprietary-IP-
Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about
the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated,
though, as Denny's message was intended to shed light on a dynamic that has
clearly involved Jimmy Wales in a central role.
All:
It seems (as is often
Hi James,
"Majority" is a little contested (it depends whether you count all the
hybrid titles, and that's a different digression), but the fact that a
lot of journals do not charge APCs is fairly well understood.
Discounting the complicated issue of hybrids, Walt Crawford found last
year that 74%
Okay so the link we are looking at is this one
https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.has_apc.exact%22%3A%22No%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%2
Niel, I saw, but the fact that WMF is targeting specific articles about
proprietary-IP-heavy subjects with a plea for revenue that is closely
aligned to the proprietary IP makes me wonder if there is enough of a nexus
that a trademark license is required. WMF is trying to leverage proprietary
IP fo
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain
> communication channels, not "our entire movement.")
>
> But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a
> certain trustee should remain in their posi
On 8 May 2016 at 22:56, James Heilman wrote:
> @ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
> Which ones are you thinking of?
>
DOAJ lists 10294 without article processing charges and 1355 with.
Taking the far more limited DOAJ seal stuff (BTW if we really want
somet
On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman wrote:
> Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
> that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
> another OA journal like this.
DOAJ lists 10,294 (including one I've actually cited the Journal of
Pine,
Joseph linked to the banner that Fundraising will be testing in his
footnote number 3. It doesn't use any non-WMF trademarks or even refer
directly to Game of Thrones at all.
Hope that helps.
*Neil P. Quinn*
+1 (202) 656 3457
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Seddon,
>
@ Andrew per "The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees"
Which ones are you thinking of?
The entire PLOS family charges, so does JMIR. Not sure if I have come
across one that has no attached fees. Some will waive fees in
specific circumstances but that is very different than no fe
On 8 May 2016 at 21:51, James Heilman wrote:
> Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
> that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
> another OA journal like this.
The majority of OA journals do not charge publication fees to author
Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain
communication channels, not "our entire movement.")
But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a
certain trustee should remain in their position.
Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
> constant and blatant double standard.
>
> And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
> ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same ei
I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
constant and blatant double standard.
And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
repeating their position ad nauseam.
On 8 May
Hi Seddon,
I'm curious. Are the banners designed in a way such that it will be
necessary for WMF to obtain trademark licenses from others, such as from
the Game of Thrones trademark owners?
Pine
On May 6, 2016 09:34, "Joseph Seddon" wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I wanted to give you a heads up ab
My proposal was not to bring these sorts of issues to the "entire
community" for a vote but for some form of community involvement. I was
more thinking a group of functionaries who would be given confidential
access to details and provide a bit of a check and balance to internal
disagreements.
Jam
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> We already have one of those.
> Cheers,
> P
Right, okay, whatever.
Combing through WM-l archives for the past six months, there is a pattern:
James is removed from the board - the same eight people write
>
> Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to
> have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to
> work with.
>
> If a majority of my fellow Board members cannot stand me for whatever
> reason (including the ones I'd find absurd), that's pret
Yes there are more than 10,000 open access journals. Ours are different in
that we do not charge the authors fees for publication. I am not sure of
another OA journal like this.
James
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, geni wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:17, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> >> If a free onl
On 5 May 2016 at 19:17, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> If a free online business model can figure out how to fund copy-editing and
>> automatic standards enforcement (for example, people make awful bibtex
>> entries, including Springer's auto-generation system), and a university
>> institution willin
We already have one of those.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Chris Keating
Sent: Sunday, 08 May 2016 8:38 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's
As some of you may remember, I was the only trustee who voted against
James' removal except himself.
Nevertheless, I still believe that any functioning body as our Board has to
have the right to expel a person, whom they feel like not being able to
work with.
If a majority of my fellow Board memb
I agree there needs to be a way to remove trustees, but IMO for community
elected trustees there needs to be community involvement in the process.
Also the ability to remove trustees "without cause" should be rescinded.
J
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
> > Second, the Boa
> Second, the Board needs to resolve never to remove a community trustee
> except by a successful recall referendum to the community. The Board
should
> never, under any circumstances, remove a community trustee without consent
> of the community that elected them.
Are you sure about this?
Whateve
Denny,
Like Todd and others, I appreciate your candid exposition of how things
went. It's important to have clarity about what happened here, and your
contributions are very helpful toward that end. Thank you.
However, these words ring hollow:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić wro
27 matches
Mail list logo
