On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour
mathias.dam...@laposte.net wrote:
Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use Wikimedia
marks ?
Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of
Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks
I'm coming in to the discussion a bit late, but why do we need a new
wiki for this? Surely it falls under the remit of Commons. I hate to see
a proliferation of wikis, it dilutes the community rather too much!
Am I missing something?
Richard Symonds
WMUK
On 11/02/2012 10:42, Ray Saintonge
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use
Wikimedia marks ?
Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten
to downgrade) chapters that would be
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour
mathias.dam...@laposte.netwrote:
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to
downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their bylaws and mission
aligned with Wikimedia's.
I see new 'models' as a positive
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
forward that
* partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
* whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com
wrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
forward that
* partner organizations are ONLY recognized by
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of
proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've
currently had on this topic.
I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking
about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and
On 2/13/12 12:51 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
forward that
* partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
* whilst chapters could
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process
wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations.
One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters
represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different
numbers of members, very
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and
to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San
Francisco...
Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor)
Secretario de Wikimedia España
mar...@wikimedia.org.es
tal_t...@yahoo.es
(34) 658 395 060
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set
of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with
the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific
Hiya all,
It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic
remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that
we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we
have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic
remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that
we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions
Message du 13/02/12 15:59
De : Lodewijk
I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement
relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF:
1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day
2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow
On 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set
of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with
the chapters). These
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es wrote:
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters
and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San
Francisco...
This is effectively how fundraising now works.
- d.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do,
please help)
* we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not
mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to
Hi folks - you may have seen some media coverage recently about
Wikimedia's intentions around GoDaddy. It is true that WMF is still
planning to move 100% away from GoDaddy for all of its domain name
services.
I've been informed that we're currently working with MarkMonitor to
carry out a full
From: Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Message-ID: jhar77$4kl$1...@dough.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why
From: Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Message-ID:
CACf6Bev=Wv-N89LB4b3DAY05RDYp9qhd4UVTGZeX3u=hvvh...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type:
On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
From: Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Message-ID:jhar77$4kl$1...@dough.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/13/12 8:45
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group
that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I
remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague
Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the
International
Reminder that the deadline to apply for a Wikimania 2012 travel scholarship
is February 16 (23:59 UTC). We encourage you to apply!
http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships
Full travel scholarships, funded by the Wikimedia Foundation and chapters
(France, UK, Israel, Austria), will
Relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#.22No_Evidence.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haymarket_affair#Dubious
--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
+27718539985
___
foundation-l mailing list
Finding nudity offensive is not a cultural universal. Members of some
cultures may be offended by looking at certain animals full-on or in
photographs; what if those animals popped up in search? Where does it end?
Where do we draw the line?
What do we hide (or erase) and what do we keep unhidden?
I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given
serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations
with Wikimedia values need to band together into some larger
umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will
allow us to return to a more
26 matches
Mail list logo
