Re: [Wikimedia-l] New comprehensive overview of ongoing WMF work (Re: WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation)

[Sam Klein]

That is quite beautiful, thank you Tilman and all who worked on it.
I was looking for such an overview recently, particularly the engineering piece.

Sam

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> following up on Sue's invitation to comment on the draft annual plan (which
>> has since been posted on Meta), I'd like to call attention to a document
>> that we have published as appendix to the FDC proposal.
>>
>> It's titled "Ongoing work areas of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation<
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas
>> >
>> " and gives a comprehensive overview of ongoing, long-term work that WMF
>> staff and contractors are carrying out in support of the Wikimedia
>> projects, much of which is usually not very visible.
>
>
> This is really a fantastic document. Thank you for highlighting it, Tilman
> :)
>
> -- Phoebe
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF priorities

[James Salsman]

>... WMF is ... is inviting comment and participation from the
> FDC and the community in crafting WMF priorities

I hope volunteer quality of life becomes a priority.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Jayanta Nath]

Any idea how will effect the India related images?

Jayanta Nath
EC Wikimedia India


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Russavia wrote:

> Yael, et al
>
> Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.
>
> I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_projects_bureaucrat.27s_are_asleep_at_the_wheel.3F_--_please_wake_upand
> on their individual talk pages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron  wrote:
>
> > After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
> > made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
> >
> > We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
> > currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the
> "rule
> > of the shorter term".
> >
> > Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank
> everyone
> > who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
> > (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
> > the participants in the discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yael Meron
> > Board of Wikimedia Israel
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New comprehensive overview of ongoing WMF work (Re: WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation)

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> following up on Sue's invitation to comment on the draft annual plan (which
> has since been posted on Meta), I'd like to call attention to a document
> that we have published as appendix to the FDC proposal.
>
> It's titled "Ongoing work areas of the Wikimedia
> Foundation<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas
> >
> " and gives a comprehensive overview of ongoing, long-term work that WMF
> staff and contractors are carrying out in support of the Wikimedia
> projects, much of which is usually not very visible.


This is really a fantastic document. Thank you for highlighting it, Tilman
:)

-- Phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] New comprehensive overview of ongoing WMF work (Re: WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation)

[Tilman Bayer]

Hi all,

following up on Sue's invitation to comment on the draft annual plan (which
has since been posted on Meta), I'd like to call attention to a document
that we have published as appendix to the FDC proposal.

It's titled "Ongoing work areas of the Wikimedia
Foundation
" and gives a comprehensive overview of ongoing, long-term work that WMF
staff and contractors are carrying out in support of the Wikimedia
projects, much of which is usually not very visible. This list of work
areas is complementing the larger, one-time endeavours and key programs
that are highlighted in the main WMF annual plan draft document and are
usually already documented fairly well in announcements, blog posts, etc.
elsewhere. I.e. you won't find much about, say, the work of the Flow or
VisualEditor/Parsoid teams, but on the other hand can read about the
constant software testing work done by the Quality Assurance team, or how
many contracts the Legal department negotiates, reviews, and approves per
year.

The text was put together for the WMF FDC proposal/annual plan publication,
but might be reused elsewhere as a long-time reference about the
Foundation's work.


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> The purpose of this note is to remind you that the WMF will be
> participating in the FDC Process Round 2, which begins tomorrow. I'd
> like to invite you to comment on the plan-in-progress, which will be
> at this URL within about 24 hours:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form
>
> The WMF welcomes your thoughts on the draft plan. Of course you're
> free to ask questions and make comments on whatever aspects of it
> interest you, but we'd probably find high-level input the most useful.
> Does it seem to you that the WMF's 2014-15 planning is generally on
> the right track? Do you believe the four "crucial initiatives" as
> described in the draft are where the WMF should be focusing its
> energy? What do you think about our plans WRT the technical
> infrastructure, our mobile work, editor engagement, and non-technical
> movement support? Bearing in mind that we're an organization focused
> fairly narrowly on product & engineering and on grantmaking, is there
> anything really significant that you see as missing from the draft?
> Are we missing any important risks to the organization or to the
> movement overall?
>
> Please don't reply here, because your input might get missed by the
> people who should see it. Please reply on meta, at the link above.
>
> And a few explanatory caveats:
>
> First, it's important to know that the plan, at this point, is draft.
> That's new. Last year the WMF submitted material after it had been
> approved by the WMF Board and after the fiscal year had begun. That
> was an okay first step to getting input from community members, but
> obviously the input will have more impact if we get it before the
> plan's locked down. That's why this year we're submitting a draft
> version of the WMF plan, rather than a final version. We've
> deliberately synched up the timing of the WMF planning and FDC review
> processes such that the community/FDC input will come in during April
> and early May, which is exactly when the plan is being actively
> refined and revised on a near-daily basis by the team responsible for
> it (primarily the C-level people, and also the people who work in
> their departments).The benefit of this timing is that community/FDC
> input can easily be incorporated into our thinking while we're
> actively discussing and rethinking and revising internally at the WMF.
> The drawback is it means you'll be reviewing material that is still a
> work-in-progress, and so you may find mistakes. The plan may also be a
> little confusing, which is partly because it's still in-progress, and
> also partly because we are merging this year the original
> WMF-Board-only format with the FDC proposal requirements. It'll be a
> little clunky: we ask you to bear with us as we work out the kinks.
>
> Second. You'll need to bear with us if we seem a little slow or
> unresponsive during the discussions. It's a busy time for the WMF:
> we're currently actively recruiting my successor as ED, which means
> Erik, Geoff, Gayle and I are far busier than we normally would be.
> And, the WMF will be working through roles-and-responsibilities for
> the FDC process in real time during the discussion period, which means
> questions may languish for a while before we figure out internally
> who's supposed to answer them. It might also be worth me saying that
> we won't have unlimited time for the process, and we're hoping it will
> be broadly participatory rather than being dominated by a small number
> of people. That means that if any particular person has lots of
> questions and follow-ups, we may e

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's April Fool's Joke?

[Nathan]

Ah, perhaps Russavia hasn't seen this post from Sue:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/447250?page=last

In particular the second to last paragraph. The WMF is not only not asking
the FDC for its entire budget, it isn't asking the FDC for any money at
all. It is inviting comment and participation from the FDC and the
community in crafting WMF priorities
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's April Fool's Joke?

[Risker]

Correcting the original link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form

No, I think what he's surprised about is that the WMF appears to be asking
the FDC for its entire budget of $60,064,000.

Frankly, I'm not sure the FDC can do that, if for no other reason than
conflict of interest: the FDC is funded from that budget.

Risker/Anne


On 3 April 2014 21:32, Nathan  wrote:

> Which part do you think is a joke? The same notice is posted on all the
> proposal forms.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's April Fool's Joke?

[Nathan]

Which part do you think is a joke? The same notice is posted on all the
proposal forms.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WMF's April Fool's Joke?

[Russavia]

Hey all,

I came across
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_formearlier,
and I noticed at the top it says:

'We ask that you please not make any changes directly to this page after
the proposal submission date (1 April), but comment on the discussion page."

Can someone please confirm that this actually was the WMF's April Fools
joke on us all?

Regards,

Russavia
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Russavia]

Yael, et al

Unfortunately, this is a case of premature congratulation.

I have let the Bureaucrats know of this issue at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#This_projects_bureaucrat.27s_are_asleep_at_the_wheel.3F_--_please_wake_upand
on their individual talk pages.

Regards,

Russavia



On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Yael Meron  wrote:

> After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
> made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
>
> We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
> currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule
> of the shorter term".
>
> Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone
> who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
> (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
> the participants in the discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yael Meron
> Board of Wikimedia Israel
>
> [1]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Fæ]

I just realised how packed with jargon my email was. Here's a bit of
unpacking and links for those who do not regularly use this vocabulary:

*UDR: A Wikimedia Commons undeletion request (DR = deletion request)*
See 

*URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act*
This is a US law that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works, see
. For
the global projects of Wikimedia, this was controversial as it has the
potential for public domain works in their home country, to be newly claimed
as copyright in the USA.

*DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act*
This is another US law that, among other things, better defined penalties
for internet copyright theft and made it clearer for internet service
providers their duties to block access to copyright infringing material
when they were notified of a credible copyright claim. These claims of
copyright are called "DMCA notices". Within the Wikimedia projects, the
Foundation may takes action to remove material subject to DMCA notices,
though there have been cases where some claim were not found legally
credible. A number of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons
is at <
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices> (As
far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for
copyright.)

Fae

On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ  wrote:
> I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do
> you need to take responsibility by yourself.
>
> As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate
> policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash
> some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for
> applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there
> have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to
> illustrate the issue.
>
> As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain
> concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of
> restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek
> independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it
> is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the
> WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not
> liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or
> undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do
> not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth
> development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have
> specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
>
> In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or
> re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
>
> Fae
>
> On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
>> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the
huge
>> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
>> and bold admins.
>> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
>> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language
issue.
>>
>> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community,
no
>> matter what. One admin even says that the
>>
>> I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yann
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Fæ]

I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do
you need to take responsibility by yourself.

As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate
policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash
some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for
applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there
have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to
illustrate the issue.

As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain
concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of
restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek
independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it
is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the
WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not
liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or
undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do
not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth
development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have
specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.

In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or
re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.

Fae

On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
> community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
> majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
> and bold admins.
> Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
> ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
>
> Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
> matter what. One admin even says that the
>
> I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the
community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge
majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal
and bold admins.
Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder
ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.

Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no
matter what. One admin even says that the

I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.

Regards,

Yann

2014-04-03 21:07 GMT+05:30 Yael Meron :

> After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
> made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
>
> We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
> currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule
> of the shorter term".
>
> Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone
> who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
> (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
> the participants in the discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yael Meron
> Board of Wikimedia Israel
>
> [1]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690

[ENWP Pine]

I'll discuss my original email to Arbcom more specifically. I asked them to 
check if Sandole had been using an undisclosed account for Harvard-related 
editing and if discussing that account on this list would have amounted to 
outing.

However, I no longer have a reason to think that Sandole was using that 
account, so I don't see a need for Arbcom involvement and neither does WTT. He 
has given me permission to say on this list that "it's not committee business 
and therefore we won't be commenting on the matter".

There are still unanswered questions but none that need to involve Arbcom at 
this time.

Pine

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:32:23 -0400
> From: Risker 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53,  690
>   of WMF funding
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> I'm still a bit confused as to why you "reported" this to Arbcom (Wikipedia
> in residence programs, paid editing, and general review of accounts are all
> outside of their purview), or what  they're supposedly looking at.  This is
> a community and WMF issue, and I do not see anything at all for Arbcom to
> do here.  In fact, I'd be concerned if they're poking around on this when
> there are several matters well within their mandate that are not apparently
> being addressed.
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> 
> On 2 April 2014 03:07, ENWP Pine  wrote:
> 
> > Although much of my original email to Arbcom about this situation is
> > outdated, I can report that Arbcom is having a look at this situation. I
> > don't think there is any action needed on their part at the moment. I am
> > only relaying my personal views and not speaking on their behalf.
> >
> > While we wait for further answers and documentation about this issue, I
> > hope those who have some spare time will look at the proposed Annual Plan
> > for the next fiscal year. I am glad WMF is providing good opportunities for
> > community and public input.
> >
> > Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thanks
GerardM


On 3 April 2014 17:37, Yael Meron  wrote:

> After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
> made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
>
> We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
> currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule
> of the shorter term".
>
> Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone
> who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
> (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
> the participants in the discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yael Meron
> Board of Wikimedia Israel
>
> [1]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF March 2014 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, April 3, 18:00 UTC

[Praveena Maharaj]

REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Praveena Maharaj
wrote:

> Dear all,
> The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
> April 3, 2014 at 6 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
> #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast
> as a live YouTube stream.
>
> The current structure of the meeting is:
>
> * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
> specialized reports and analytic
> * Review of financials
> * Welcoming recent hires
> * Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
> initiatives
> * Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
>
> Please review
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for
> further information about how to participate.
>
> We'll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
>
> Thank you,
> Praveena
>
> --
> Praveena Maharaj
> Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering & Product Development
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6689
> www.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

[Yael Meron]

After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was
made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.

We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is
currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule
of the shorter term".

Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone
who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department
(specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and
the participants in the discussion.

Regards,

Yael Meron
Board of Wikimedia Israel

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding_URAA
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 1 week reminder: Wikimania 2014 – Call for Submissions

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Cristian Consonni, 31/03/2014 11:38:

description of the different formats for the
presentations/submission, i.e. discussion, hot seat, panel,
presentation, tutorial, workshop.


Iolanda made https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Sessions ;)


In particular, what is the "hot seat" format?


Maybe Polimerek could also document the answer on wiki. ;)

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 1 week reminder: Wikimania 2014 - Call for Submissions

[Cristian Consonni]

2014-03-31 14:34 GMT+02:00 Tomasz Ganicz :
> I guess it is just a Q&A session with someone ready to answer
> potentially difficult questions from the audience :-)

Ok Tomasz, thanks!

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,