The financial funding in the FDC recommendation was approved by the Board
of Trustees on December 9, 2015. The resolution is available here:
<
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_approval_of_FDC_recommendation_(2015-16,_Round_1)
>
As usual the Board is extremely grateful for the
I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is
set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took
me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.
I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that
any
James,
all these things that you answered about - being out of process,
disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you
explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words,
those are yours.
Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was no
Milos,
I find a lot in your email to agree with.
The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, in my understanding, is not the top
governance body of the Wikimedia movement. It sometimes stands in for that,
because we don't have anything better - but its composition and its legal
obligations suggest tha
My issue with the current proposal on Meta is that it creates a body which
works towards the Board.
This is, in my opinion, a fundamental mistake: it perpetuates the idea that
the Board is the major governing body of the movement at large.
I would very much prefer an independent and strong body t
No, I think the questions of community representation on the Board and the
creation of an independent body able to represent the communities are
orthogonal. I do not see anyone suggesting that the Board should not have
community representatives.
But I see the need for a body representing the commu
David,
thanks for that perspective. I agree that in theory the Foundation has the
power you describe. But it is the same theory that lead to the
implementation of Superprotect, and we know how this worked out. I do not
think that the use of such a power would be accepted.
Or am I wrong?
Denny
For Wikipedia's 15th birthday I wish that we will move towards thinking how
to massively increase the effectivity of each and every single contributor
and their reach. I wish us to think how we can, by 2020, create
well-sourced, high quality, comprehensive Wikipedias in more than 200
languages, and
I find it rather surprising, but I very much find myself in agreement with
most what Andreas Kolbe said on this thread.
To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current
crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide
more complex and this expensive APIs:
what we already have thats another. Limiting abusive sources
> shouldnt be an issue, but as soon as we start selling access we loose sight
> of our mission.
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Denny Vrandecic >
> wrote:
>
> > I find it rather surprising, but I very much find m
Delphine,
thank you.
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are
discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight
that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you
for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber tha
That's exactly what an abducted and then either brainwashed or replaced
Lydia would say. This is just getting increasingly suspicious by the minute.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter
>
Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal.
I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by
creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region
seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at
large? Why not
opriate for the Board of Trustees, but I would love to hear the
opinion of others on this.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal.
>
> I have trouble with suggestions that state "we
Thanks to all the answers to my response. I am still reading them, and I
probably will not be able to answer to all in a timely manner (I have to
work, after all), but I wanted to make a few things clearer, quickly:
Milos, I indeed do not care about reelection. And if I have to choose
between trut
-- Forwarded message --
From: Patricio Lorente
Date: Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning
To: "wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org>, wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear friends,
I wanted to explicitly state that a number of us are reading intensively
many of the ideas suggested in a diversity of channels, including this
mailing list.
We are hearing you.
We cannot reply to all of them, as we simply lack the bandwidth. But we are
listening.
Thank you for your passion.
In order to avoid misunderstandings, would you please clarify what you mean
with "fully vetted"? This term can mean so many different things, and I
want to make sure.
On Feb 26, 2016 05:32, "Comet styles" wrote:
> I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's
> incompetency
I agree as well.
On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales" wrote:
> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
> you
> > to eject Heilman from the board. I'
Sorry, I don't know where else to ask - I was thinking of trying out the
Discourse installation, and wasn't sure if I should create a new account or
if I could just use my SUL credentials? And if the former, wouldn't that
later clash when we merge to something like OAuth?
__
pent to build a bridge between the two.
>
> For now, with the test, you will need to create a new account.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Denny Vrandecic >
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I don't know where else to ask - I was thinking of trying out the
> > Discourse i
Thanks. I also got reminded about that a few times, recently. I would love
this to be more reflected upon.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
>
> "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small min
I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
to pursue
To the best of my knowledge, the two leading candidate technologies for a
decentralized Wikipedia - git and blockchain - would both not scale to
Wikipedia's requirements.
(But I am not an expert in distributed technologies, merely looked into
these two for exactly this use case.)
On Sep 23, 2015 4
IIRC we used to have the alternative URL
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/fa/wiki/
in order to access
https://fa.wikinews.org/wiki
but it seems that these were turned into redirects, probably when the https
switch happened.
Would it be an idea to not make them redirects but return the con
Oh, thanks for the report. IP blocks suck more than DNS meddling...
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup
wrote:
> It seems IP of WMF wikis is being blocked so AFAIK it doesn't really depend
> on domain name.
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM Denny Vrandecic
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
