Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
Hoi, In your question the key thing to appreciate is that it is the .org part that does not need to be in the Latin script any more. What I propose is that we support the whole wikipedia.org part and wiktionary.org part once in each script. What the word is for Wikipedia is not my call. This is either obvious or a choice is to be made. We will gain a lot in usability when our whole experience can be wholly in the one script that is most comfortable to the user. It is relevant to note that the language codes we use in front of wikipedia.org need to be transcribed. Thanks, GerardM 2009/10/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Gerard, I don't think we currently register wikipedia.cn or 维基百科.cn http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.cnhttp:// %e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/or 维基百科.org http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.org http:// %e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/. When the new ICANN policies are in place, as I understand it, there will be four new domains possible: wikipedia.c?n?, wikipedia.o?r?g?, 维基百科.c?n?http://%e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/and 维基百科.o?r?g? http://%e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/... which of these are you suggesting using? SJ On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, According to an article on the BBC website, it is now possible to have a URL that is completely in the script used for a language. This means that a Russian URL would be completely in the Cyrillic script and it would not need to end with .org. I would like the Wikimedia Foundation to get the necessary domains to support the scripts that we have language versions in. The BBC article explains that people do find the need to move from one script to the other as problematic and cumbersome. Obviously, we can have the necessary mapping from our current Latin based URLs to the ones in other scripts. This will be an important feature because we want people to easily move between our projects. Thanks, GerardM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8333209.stm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
I see. So you'd like to see double the number of site registrations; in this case adding 维基百科.o?r?g? to zh.wikipedia.org That strikes me as a significant expense for uncertain result; but it would make a good strategy proposal -- especially if you can find users from ar, zh, ru, and indic-language communities to weigh in on how often they visit non-latin-script url's today. [presumably someone who really prefers using non-latin scripts would be visiting sites today whose full url, other than the TLD code, was in a non-latin script.] SJ On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, In your question the key thing to appreciate is that it is the .org part that does not need to be in the Latin script any more. What I propose is that we support the whole wikipedia.org part and wiktionary.org part once in each script. What the word is for Wikipedia is not my call. This is either obvious or a choice is to be made. We will gain a lot in usability when our whole experience can be wholly in the one script that is most comfortable to the user. It is relevant to note that the language codes we use in front of wikipedia.org need to be transcribed. Thanks, GerardM 2009/10/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Gerard, I don't think we currently register wikipedia.cn or 维基百科.cn http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.cn http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.cn http:// %e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/or 维基百科.org http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.org http://xn--3js032e7ich4g.org http:// %e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/. When the new ICANN policies are in place, as I understand it, there will be four new domains possible: wikipedia.c?n?, wikipedia.o?r?g?, 维基百科.c?n?http://%e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/and 维基百科.o?r?g? http://%e7%bb%b4%e5%9f%ba%e7%99%be%e7%a7%91.org/... which of these are you suggesting using? SJ On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, According to an article on the BBC website, it is now possible to have a URL that is completely in the script used for a language. This means that a Russian URL would be completely in the Cyrillic script and it would not need to end with .org. I would like the Wikimedia Foundation to get the necessary domains to support the scripts that we have language versions in. The BBC article explains that people do find the need to move from one script to the other as problematic and cumbersome. Obviously, we can have the necessary mapping from our current Latin based URLs to the ones in other scripts. This will be an important feature because we want people to easily move between our projects. Thanks, GerardM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8333209.stm ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
By the way Hungary supports accented domains for some years now and the experience shows that they are not used at all. Penetration is so low that I couldn't even tell you one to test. (We have, for example http://wikipédia.hu/, but it's rather a test than a real usage.) Apart from that Wikipedia is large enough to create trends, so by no means take my comment as an opposition. grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
Hoi, The Hungarian Wikipedia is written in the Latin script so the experience cannot be compared. Thanks, GerardM 2009/10/31 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com By the way Hungary supports accented domains for some years now and the experience shows that they are not used at all. Penetration is so low that I couldn't even tell you one to test. (We have, for example http://wikipédia.hu/ http://xn--wikipdia-f1a.hu/, but it's rather a test than a real usage.) Apart from that Wikipedia is large enough to create trends, so by no means take my comment as an opposition. grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
Do you need to register domains under these new internationalised TLDs? To me it seems to be the obvious solution, that the internationalised TLDs will be aliases to the existing ones. So wikipedia.cn and 维基百科. c?n? will point to the same target. That's how I would solve it and I really see no reson to do it in any other way. But I couldn't find any information whether this is the case or not. I still could be wrong about this assumption. But if they will be aliases nothing needs to be done by the Foundation. At the moment it is only planned to internationalise some few country TLDs. .org and other gTLDs will not be internationalised for the moment. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
I think the community should be and is being treated as a majority shareholder, even better! Office IT support is a typical thing that the community is not affected by AT ALL. So I am not surprised no announcement is being given on foundation-l about this. If any public list would be relevant, it would be wikitech-l, but even there it would be doubtful. (not even to speak about privacy issues) We should get used to a situation where the foundation grows, and that more hirings/firings (or farewells for other reasons) are going to take place then up to now. It would simply not be practical to announce them all. I do expect the foundation to announce community-relevant positions such as the volunteer coordinator, CsomethingO's, board positions and other functions that relate to the community more directly. Financial controllers, office supports, personal assistants etc are just not relevant to the community, and a change on the relevant webpages and maybe a periodic (anonymized?) overview on monthly reports would make more sense. (2 hirings last month, and three people left the foundation for example) Lodewijk 2009/10/30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of majority shareholder or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details of personnel management. Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than announce everything announce often. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Font support for our domains
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 08:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: The Hungarian Wikipedia is written in the Latin script I'm kind of guessed that. :-] so the experience cannot be compared. It is not the same, but indeed they can be compared. Straight denial doesn't always helpful. And no need to debate, just acknowledge the fact that people's habit may be stronger than you guess. :-) regards, grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
- Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation is a business... No it isn't - the Foundation is a charity. The Foundation needs to retain the confidence of the Wikimedia community in order to achieve its aims, and the community plays a big role in the Foundation through elected and chapter-selected board members. I'm sure it understands that. Andrew ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: where sensationalised rumours get spread because of a lack of accurate information. I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour speading because of a lack of accurate information. What we know so far is someone said was he fired? and now we know he has a last day posted. It's a little odd to work for only a few months at a job though. So fired wouldn't be a bad guess. Quit in a huff could be another guess. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/31 wjhon...@aol.com: In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: where sensationalised rumours get spread because of a lack of accurate information. I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour speading because of a lack of accurate information. What we know so far is someone said was he fired? and now we know he has a last day posted. It's a little odd to work for only a few months at a job though. So fired wouldn't be a bad guess. Quit in a huff could be another guess. As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:24:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour. Let me suggest another scenario. Dear employee, you're fired, however, please don't tell anyone that you've been fired, go away and don't show up, and we'll keep paying you for another month. If you open your mouth, we won't. So it's also an assumption that he's working. At least in the office. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/10/31 wjhon...@aol.com: In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:24:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour. Let me suggest another scenario. Dear employee, you're fired, however, please don't tell anyone that you've been fired, go away and don't show up, and we'll keep paying you for another month. If you open your mouth, we won't. So it's also an assumption that he's working. At least in the office. It's possible, but since that would require the WMF to intentionally mislead the community and there is no evidence to support it, I think it is unlikely to be the case. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
I agree with Lodewijk completely. One of the best reasons for this is simple human dignity. People come and go from jobs all the time, it is neither a scandal, nor a shame. Public speculation about such stuff is offensive and embarassing. Yes, to community-facing positions. Yes, to high-level positions. Those things are relevant public information and can and should be discussed. But not every job is like that, nor should it be. effe iets anders wrote: I think the community should be and is being treated as a majority shareholder, even better! Office IT support is a typical thing that the community is not affected by AT ALL. So I am not surprised no announcement is being given on foundation-l about this. If any public list would be relevant, it would be wikitech-l, but even there it would be doubtful. (not even to speak about privacy issues) We should get used to a situation where the foundation grows, and that more hirings/firings (or farewells for other reasons) are going to take place then up to now. It would simply not be practical to announce them all. I do expect the foundation to announce community-relevant positions such as the volunteer coordinator, CsomethingO's, board positions and other functions that relate to the community more directly. Financial controllers, office supports, personal assistants etc are just not relevant to the community, and a change on the relevant webpages and maybe a periodic (anonymized?) overview on monthly reports would make more sense. (2 hirings last month, and three people left the foundation for example) Lodewijk 2009/10/30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of majority shareholder or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details of personnel management. Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than announce everything announce often. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:22 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: And the reason for speculation is that people first found out by rumor rather than foundation announcement. Basic communication management. Get stuff out before someone else can put their spin on it. I have to disagree. The reason for the speculation is not the rumor. The reason for the speculation is a misguided sense that there's some sort of absolute right to know about these things. Jimmy's right: it makes sense that board or upper level management positions are discussed among the project community (although I would not consider this list to be a useful forum of community discussion). It does not, however, make sense that this principle be applied to someone responsible for office IT. I don't know what the reasons were for why this particular employment is scheduled to end. And there's no reason that I or anyone other than those directly involved with it internally to the foundation should know. It's a simple case of none-of-your-business. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of majority shareholder or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details of personnel management. Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than announce everything announce often. On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Sebastian Moleski seb...@gmail.com wrote: I have to disagree. The reason for the speculation is not the rumor. The reason for the speculation is a misguided sense that there's some sort of absolute right to know about these things. Jimmy's right: it makes sense that board or upper level management positions are discussed among the project community (although I would not consider this list to be a useful forum of community discussion). It does not, however, make sense that this principle be applied to someone responsible for office IT. I don't know what the reasons were for why this particular employment is scheduled to end. And there's no reason that I or anyone other than those directly involved with it internally to the foundation should know. It's a simple case of none-of-your-business. Practically every state and municipal government in the US is subject to public disclosure laws, sometimes part of 'Government in the sunshine' legislation, which require most relevant information about the daily operations to be made available. This usually includes information on employee performance, reasons for departure/dismissal, etc. about everyone from top management through the junior dog-catcher. Though the law usually does exclude highly private/personal information (for example, medical information). [I'm coming from a US centric angle here because that is what I know. Feel free to mentally replace US locations with any other place with robust records laws] Accordingly, I find the supposition that being very open about the operations of the foundation is somehow incompatible with professionalism or ethical behaviour to be simply unsustainable. Wikimedia is not a business. It is a publicly supported charity. The WMF depends on the public both for the funding used to cut everyone's paychecks and for the creation of the material which makes its sites worth visiting. In terms of man-hours-input the community of contributors dwarfs the foundation's full time staff considerably. The inescapable reality of this is that the employees and officers serve at the pleasure of the public. Although the chain is not a direct chain of command, it is no less real. So I don't think it's surprising to see people making noises expressing a desire for the kind of openness which is technically available from state and local governance almost universally thought the US. In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Cal. §11120 I believe Wikimedia Foundation already has a stated goal of being on the leading edge of organizational openness and has done well /by commercial standards/.Perhaps it's time to take that a step further and voluntarily subject the organization to the public record laws of some state or some composition or subset thereof. Not only would this advance openness but it may help avoid arguments over the form and level of openness by delegating those decisions to others who have thought harder about them than we have. It may also make cooperating with other organizations simpler because rather than trying to explain Wikimedia's bizarre one-off openness requirements and the inevitable debate about the wisdom of every aspect, it could be simply pointed out that the WMF operates under some particular rule-set used elsewhere. Pre-existing government openness rulesets also have the advantage of the existence of training materials for staff and layman guides for the public. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired. You correctly qualified that with In my experience people don't usually the first time. In any case, the difference between laid off and fired is often quite blurry, and people certainly often get notice when being laid off. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I don't know. With the unemployment rate in the double digits, it's often better to refuse to sign that resignation by mutual agreement letter. I wouldn't venture a guess one way or the other. I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour. Being the head of office IT support for a bunch of techies is always a tough job. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
Geni, Thomas and MZMcbride suggest that the Foundation should announce the dismissal of low-impact employees because otherwise the rumor mill will make up stories. Perhaps you're right that the spread of rumors is inevitable, but you don't seem to acknowledge your own role in this. Even so, Wikipedians will do what Wikipedians will do is not the best argument for immediately publishing sensitive employment information, particularly when doing so may go against various elements of employment law and/or simple best practice. Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy, and relates to why I mentioned majority shareholder in my initial post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board composition through elections. The information given to shareholders of large, publicly owned corporations in the United States varies widely, but generally speaking announcements are not made about the hiring or departure of non-executive staff. Gregory cites a California statute, but all governments are not equally open: North Carolina: quote � 126‑22.� Personnel files not subject to inspection under � 132‑6. Personnel files of State employees, former State employees, or applicants for State employment shall not be subject to inspection and examination as authorized by G.S. 132‑6. For purposes of this Article, a personnel file consists of any information gathered by the department, division, bureau, commission, council, or other agency subject to Article 7 of this Chapter which employs an individual, previously employed an individual, or considered an individual's application for employment, or by the office of State Personnel, and which information relates to the individual's application, selection or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation forms, disciplinary actions, and termination of employment wherever located and in whatever form. Personnel files of former State employees who have been separated from State employment for 10 or more years may be open to inspection and examination except for papers and documents relating to demotions and to disciplinary actions resulting in the dismissal of the employee. (1975, c. 257, s. 1; 1977, c. 866, s. 9.) endquote Even California is not as permissive as you imply; see http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pdf/sos_pra_guidelines.pdf (Records Exempt from Public Disclosure) and http://law.onecle.com/california/government/6254.html (Government Code Section 6254 Paragraph C, describing the exemption of personnel records from public disclosure). In my opinion we should be informed about changes and actions that affect the Foundation and its operations or substantially impact the execution of its mission. This can include broad employment information on some employees, as evidenced by the recent announced departure of Jennifer Riggs. Maybe some people want the gory details when anyone is fired; every office has people like that. But we're not entitled to it, its poor manners to ask, and the Foundation is right to decline such requests. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: Yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want. In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether? If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether? If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office? Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies. And, of course, is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation just did. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy, and relates to why I mentioned majority shareholder in my initial post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board composition through elections. Greg raises a very strong point that demolishes your reply. You say wikipedia is a business, therefore... and of course... Wikipedia is not a bussiness (perhaps you mixed up with wikia?) ___ I'll stipulate that corporation is a more accurate term. I don't see how the semantic difference impacts my reply. But thanks for making sure I wasn't confusing the various entities. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: It's possible, but since that would require the WMF to intentionally mislead the community and there is no evidence to support it, I think it is unlikely to be the case. That would be true only if the Foundation had actually made a statement of some sort, and they haven't. So they aren't misleading by silence, they just aren't commenting at all. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
