On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar wrote:
> OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for
> STV.
>
>
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System
>
>
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Electi
*sigh* caught in the reply-issue
On 18 September 2012 00:04, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 00:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton
>> wrote:
>> > OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred
>> to or
>> > introduced a
On 17/09/2012 23:50, rexx wrote:
The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in
software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python
implementation at
https://github.com/bradbeattie/python-vote-core/blo
On 17 September 2012 23:50, Thomas Morton wrote:
> OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred to or
> introduced as a WMUK project.
>
> (e.g. this Wikimania video:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg )
>
> Obviously that is a concern
James,
"Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under
Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors
shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a
tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The
ann
OK, having done some digging; this project seems to be often referred to or
introduced as a WMUK project.
(e.g. this Wikimania video:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GibraltarpediA_introduction_video.ogg *)*
*
*
Obviously that is a concerning facet that needs to be cleared up also.
Tom
On 17 S
I have a preference for the Schulze method as well, since it is generally
superior to many other methods, even if somewhat opaque in its mechanism.
Examining the comparisons at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table
should give an indication of its strengths.
The only probl
On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan wrote:
> On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
>
>> Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
>> that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the
>> current system. I intend to draft a motion with new electi
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the
current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for
STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like t
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for
STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received.
He's mistaken. There is no mechanism in place for generating income from
the domains qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Commentators also need to
differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the
domain names. WMUK's interest in QRpedia is in finding ways to ensure that
the service
Clearly what is needed, with some urgency is:
* A clear statement from Roger as to what renumeration he is receiving, and
what agreements he has in place with the Gibraltar tourist board etc. This
will go to clearing up the confusion.
* A clear statement about WMUK's intended involvement with thi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating > wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT
>>> License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use
>>> the QRpedia technology too
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current
system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if
anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft
electi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, "Chris Keating"
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been
> raised in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated.
> >
> > 1. "Paid editing
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start
making some progress on this.
On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>
>> Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no:
>> are you confirming
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are
> you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on
> board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the
> board is concerned)?
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are
you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on
board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the
board is concerned)?
Best,
Lodewijk
2012/9/16 Chris Keating
>
>
>> http://uk
On Sep 17, 2012 8:34 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised
in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated.
>
> 1. "Paid editing"
> To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific
W
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
>
> I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT
>> License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use
>> the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to
>> use it whenever
> I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT
> License, today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use
> the QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to
> use it whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights
> h
Dear all,
Though I should clarify a few issues. 4 different issues have been raised
in this thread and it's important that they don't get conflated.
1. "Paid editing"
To respond to Tom Dalton's original point, there isn't any specific
Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing". We have never actively
I understand the QRpedia software is freely reusable under the MIT License,
today. In other words – people in Brazil or India are able to use the
QRpedia technology too, aren't they? And they will always be able to use it
whenever they want, without ever having to ask the current rights holders
or
I am at the bedside of someone in hospital so this will be brief. We have been
working on an agreement solidly for the last two months. Should be agreed VERY
shortly. �No cock ups OR conspiracies just very complicated law. �Jon. Jon.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-Original Message---
My understanding is that there has been an ongoing delay in the transferring of
the intellectual property to Wikimedia UK, this was the situation nearly 3
months ago. As far as I am aware there is still a delay in this on roger's side.
Seddon
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:04:58 +0100
From: werespie
We're still pulling those stats together, but just in the last few weeks,
the marvellous Coventry photo competition led to about 60 people getting
involved. I'd hazard a guess at somewhere between 500 and 1,000 individuals
who have been to WMUK-funded events in the past year - but that's a very
bro
Dear all,
It's Ada Lovelace Day on 16 October and it's most suitable for Wikimedia UK
to get involved. The day exists to celebrate the contributions of women in
the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As you may
know, Ada Lovelace is considered the first programmer, due to
I'm at an event about open data and charities and someone has just
asked how many people each delegate's charity has worked with (term
not defined) in the last year. I wonder whether Wikimedia-UK keep such
stats?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Doug Weller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> > This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work,
> leveraging
> > a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.
> >
> > Take coverage like this article here:
> >
I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit
leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit.
But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell
me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my
understanding of QR
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> This is paid Wikipedia editing and paid Wikipedia-based PR work, leveraging
> a Wikimedia UK directorship. It looks terrible.
>
> Take coverage like this article here:
>
> http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html
To list as well. Gah! Why did we set it this way again?
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard
Date: 17 September 2012 13:32
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
To: Andreas Kolbe
On 17 September 2012 13:19, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I ag
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 17/09/12 02:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> Jimbo has commented on his talk page:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimed
I'll send an email to the other list owners today about it. Might take a
few days, bear with us!
Richard Symonds
On 17 September 2012 12:41, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I've just accidentally sent another email offlist... as previously
> requested, can someone please change the list settings back
I assume that people are finding the details out online, and they're then
assuming that we're the best people to contact (confusion between
'Wikimedians from the UK' and 'Wikimedia UK'). As far as I know, no-one's
been given our contact details in relation to the project, and the site at
http://en.
On 17/09/12 12:48, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton
mailto:thomas.dal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Accidentally sent offlist...
Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went
to a list member's private mail account, rather than the list
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Accidentally sent offlist...
>
Same thing happened to me yesterday ... I clicked Reply, and it went to a
list member's private mail account, rather than the list.
Is it possible to change the default behaviour of the Reply button back? It
I've just accidentally sent another email offlist... as previously
requested, can someone please change the list settings back to having
replies go to the list automatically like they do on every other
mailing list I subscribe to? Inconveniencing everyone like this in
order to protect a few people
Accidentally sent offlist...
On 17 September 2012 12:33, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 17 September 2012 09:33, Jon Davies wrote:
>> Good morning Tom.
>>
>> Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient
>> by their very nature but in answer to your specific question:
>>
Dear all,
Parkinson's UK has contacted Wikimedia UK with a request to have a
introductory Wikipedia training run for them on Thursday* 11 October*,
10am-4pm, London. They have found out about us after hearing about the
Cancer Research collaboration, and were inspired to also help Wikipedia in
the
Good morning Tom.
Meeting minutes cannot offer a level of detail that will ever be sufficient
by their very nature but in answer to your specific question:
The board agreed that we would be happy to supply 'learn to edit' booklets
and and some office support. In reality this means referring any ca
I believe the matter was discussed at Board level when Roger, iirc at
the time WMUK Chair, took up consulting with the Monmouth Council and he
resigned from the post of Chair as a result of this assignment. Can a
Board Member please shed more light on this?
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:28:02 +010
On Sep 17, 2012 3:01 AM, "Richard Symonds"
wrote:
>
> it's very late, so I'll keep this short until I'm in work tomorrow; but
the 'in kind support' amounts to a few dozen A4 'learn to edit' leaflets,
nothing more.
The resolution in the minutes is a lot broader than that. If the intention
was just
43 matches
Mail list logo
