Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board approves FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding recommendations

[Lodewijk]

Dear Patricio,

In the past weeks, I understood there to be a formal complaint against
followed process. For these complaints, a process has been established
through the ombudsperson giving an analysis and advise to the board (as I
understand it).

I am a bit surprised how well this complaint has been hidden - probably not
intentionally but no less effectively. From the board decision I understand
that the board has not considered the complaints made - as it is not
mentioned at all in the resolution, except in thanking the ombudsperson.
Also, from the board decision page it has not been linked, while I would
expect it to be relevant input to your decision.

All in all this leaves an impression with me of 'just file your complaints
at this ombudsperson, so that we can further ignore it and it will be
pointless'.

Basically my questions are:
* Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this process
or does that process stop at the ombudsperson?
* If yes, what was the decision on that and why was it not communicated in
the resolution?
* Are links to the complaints intentionally made scarce on meta or is this
an oversight for example because this is the first time such complaints
have been filed?

Best,
Lodewijk


2013/6/1 Patricio Lorente 

> Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
>
> As you know, on April 28, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) made
> its Round 2 funding recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees. [1]
> From the four proposals that were submitted in this round, the FDC
> recommended that two of these movement entities receive a total of
> $665,000 USD: they recommended $140,000 USD to Wikimedia Norge and
> $525,000 USD to Wikimédia France.
>
> I am pleased to share with you the news that the Board of Trustees has
> made the decision to approve the FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding
> recommendations. [2] These funding recommendations will now be
> implemented by the Foundation.
>
> Many members of our community provided significant and thoughtful
> input during Round 2. We would like to thank the Round 2 applicants,
> the Funds Dissemination Committee members and staff, the ombudsperson,
> and the members of the community who participated in the review
> period.
>
> We have learned much from this inaugural year of the FDC process, and
> we look forward to hearing from you about your experience. The WMF
> learning and evaluation team will be reaching out to those that
> participated in the process to collect feedback through surveys, and
> the ombudsperson will be collecting feedback as well. Learning
> collected through these processes will be shared in a report.
>
> Again, we thank you all for your dedication and commitment to this
> funding process.
>
> Best,
>
> Patricio Lorente, Board Representative to the FDC
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2
> [2]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Board_decisions/2012-2013_round2
>
> --
> Patricio Lorente
> Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
> Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
>
> ___
> 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] Wikivoyage logo

[Peter Southwood]

Has anyone done a search on other logos with similar characteristics, to see 
how much they differ? I think the WTO is taking a chance with this. Which 
specific aspects do they object to?

Peter Southwood.
- Original Message - 
From: "Maggie Dennis" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:21 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:


Michelle Paulson wrote:
>Since then, the Foundation has received a cease-and-desist letter from 
>the
>WTO, requesting that we change the logo. While we wish that the WTO 
>agreed
>with our assessment that the two logos contain substantial differences 
>and

>could co-exist, we understand their concern. We still believe that there
>are some significant differences between the Wikivoyage logo and the 
>WTO,

>however, such arguments are not guaranteed to win if we were to legally
>oppose this request because there are also some substantial 
>similarities.

>With this in mind, as well as the fact that the Wikivoyage logo is still
>relatively new and has not had a chance to build significant brand
>recognition yet, we believe the better solution is to hold a new 
>community

>contest for a new logo.

Will the current Wikivoyage logo be an option in this upcoming logo
selection contest? If the Wikivoyage community is strongly in favor of
retaining the logo it already approved, what are options?




On behalf of a Wikivoyager, I've already asked the legal team if
derivatives of the current logo would be usable, and I'm afraid the answer
is no. It must be a new logo.


I don't believe there's any precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation 
vetoing

a community-approved logo in this manner. (Is there?) This seems like
unchartered territory for Wikimedia, so it's important to be cautious and
careful, I think.



I think that the reason why there's no precedent is because this is the
first time that we have run into a trademark infringement claim against a
logo.


>We believe that the community is the best body to decide what logo 
>should
>represent their hard work and hope that interested community members 
>will

>take this opportunity to once again showcase their creativity and talent
>by submitting designs.

As I posted on the relevant Meta-Wiki talk page just now, the Wikimedia
community cannot feel rushed or pressured to accept this new logo
selection procedure. Typically a discussion of this nature would last at
least thirty days, from my experience.

This leaves two options, as I see it: pushing back the timeline for the
selection of a Wikivoyage logo by a few weeks or not using this procedure
for the selection of the next Wikivoyage logo.



The question of process is one for Meta, where discussion is already
underway. No reason to fracture it. :) I appreciate your input there.

Maggie


--
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
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] Wikivoyage logo

[Craig Franklin]

I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would not
have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a credible
argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively new
and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good risk/reward
ratio in my view.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin



On 1 June 2013 19:59, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Has anyone done a search on other logos with similar characteristics, to
> see how much they differ? I think the WTO is taking a chance with this.
> Which specific aspects do they object to?
> Peter Southwood.
> - Original Message - From: "Maggie Dennis" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> 
> >
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo
>
>
>
>  On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:21 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>>
>>  Michelle Paulson wrote:
>>> >Since then, the Foundation has received a cease-and-desist letter from
>>> >the
>>> >WTO, requesting that we change the logo. While we wish that the WTO
>>> >agreed
>>> >with our assessment that the two logos contain substantial differences
>>> >and
>>> >could co-exist, we understand their concern. We still believe that there
>>> >are some significant differences between the Wikivoyage logo and the
>>> >WTO,
>>> >however, such arguments are not guaranteed to win if we were to legally
>>> >oppose this request because there are also some substantial
>>> >similarities.
>>> >With this in mind, as well as the fact that the Wikivoyage logo is still
>>> >relatively new and has not had a chance to build significant brand
>>> >recognition yet, we believe the better solution is to hold a new
>>> >community
>>> >contest for a new logo.
>>>
>>> Will the current Wikivoyage logo be an option in this upcoming logo
>>> selection contest? If the Wikivoyage community is strongly in favor of
>>> retaining the logo it already approved, what are options?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On behalf of a Wikivoyager, I've already asked the legal team if
>> derivatives of the current logo would be usable, and I'm afraid the answer
>> is no. It must be a new logo.
>>
>>
>>  I don't believe there's any precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> vetoing
>>> a community-approved logo in this manner. (Is there?) This seems like
>>> unchartered territory for Wikimedia, so it's important to be cautious and
>>> careful, I think.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I think that the reason why there's no precedent is because this is the
>> first time that we have run into a trademark infringement claim against a
>> logo.
>>
>>
>>  >We believe that the community is the best body to decide what logo
>>> >should
>>> >represent their hard work and hope that interested community members
>>> >will
>>> >take this opportunity to once again showcase their creativity and talent
>>> >by submitting designs.
>>>
>>> As I posted on the relevant Meta-Wiki talk page just now, the Wikimedia
>>> community cannot feel rushed or pressured to accept this new logo
>>> selection procedure. Typically a discussion of this nature would last at
>>> least thirty days, from my experience.
>>>
>>> This leaves two options, as I see it: pushing back the timeline for the
>>> selection of a Wikivoyage logo by a few weeks or not using this procedure
>>> for the selection of the next Wikivoyage logo.
>>>
>>>
>>>  The question of process is one for Meta, where discussion is already
>> underway. No reason to fracture it. :) I appreciate your input there.
>>
>> Maggie
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maggie Dennis
>> Senior Community Advocate
>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>> __**_
>> 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] WMF Board approves FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding recommendations

[Patricio Lorente]

Hi, Lodewijc!

2013/6/1 Lodewijk :
[...]
>
> Basically my questions are:
> * Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this process
> or does that process stop at the ombudsperson?
Yes, in fact the Board representatives at the FDC posted a formal
answer after receiving the ombudsperson report [1].

> * If yes, what was the decision on that and why was it not communicated in
> the resolution?
As you can find in our answer, we decided to support the FDC
recommendation. There's a full explanation there about why we decided
that way.

> * Are links to the complaints intentionally made scarce on meta or is this
> an oversight for example because this is the first time such complaints
> have been filed?
As with the previous question, I think you are making this one because
you missed our formal answer to the complaint, which, by the way, was
inmediately communicated to the Chapter's representatives. But anyway,
if you have any idea that could improve the whole process, we will be
happy to consider it.

Thank you,

   Patricio

[1] 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2#Response_from_Board_representatives


--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[Peter Southwood]

I would still like an answer to my questions
Cheers,
Peter Southwood
- Original Message - 
From: "Craig Franklin" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo



I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would not
have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a credible
argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively 
new

and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good risk/reward
ratio in my view.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin



On 1 June 2013 19:59, Peter Southwood  
wrote:



Has anyone done a search on other logos with similar characteristics, to
see how much they differ? I think the WTO is taking a chance with this.
Which specific aspects do they object to?
Peter Southwood.
- Original Message - From: "Maggie Dennis" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 


>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo



 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:21 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:


 Michelle Paulson wrote:

>Since then, the Foundation has received a cease-and-desist letter from
>the
>WTO, requesting that we change the logo. While we wish that the WTO
>agreed
>with our assessment that the two logos contain substantial differences
>and
>could co-exist, we understand their concern. We still believe that 
>there

>are some significant differences between the Wikivoyage logo and the
>WTO,
>however, such arguments are not guaranteed to win if we were to 
>legally

>oppose this request because there are also some substantial
>similarities.
>With this in mind, as well as the fact that the Wikivoyage logo is 
>still

>relatively new and has not had a chance to build significant brand
>recognition yet, we believe the better solution is to hold a new
>community
>contest for a new logo.

Will the current Wikivoyage logo be an option in this upcoming logo
selection contest? If the Wikivoyage community is strongly in favor of
retaining the logo it already approved, what are options?




On behalf of a Wikivoyager, I've already asked the legal team if
derivatives of the current logo would be usable, and I'm afraid the 
answer

is no. It must be a new logo.


 I don't believe there's any precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation

vetoing
a community-approved logo in this manner. (Is there?) This seems like
unchartered territory for Wikimedia, so it's important to be cautious 
and

careful, I think.


 I think that the reason why there's no precedent is because this is 
the
first time that we have run into a trademark infringement claim against 
a

logo.


 >We believe that the community is the best body to decide what logo

>should
>represent their hard work and hope that interested community members
>will
>take this opportunity to once again showcase their creativity and 
>talent

>by submitting designs.

As I posted on the relevant Meta-Wiki talk page just now, the Wikimedia
community cannot feel rushed or pressured to accept this new logo
selection procedure. Typically a discussion of this nature would last 
at

least thirty days, from my experience.

This leaves two options, as I see it: pushing back the timeline for the
selection of a Wikivoyage logo by a few weeks or not using this 
procedure

for the selection of the next Wikivoyage logo.


 The question of process is one for Meta, where discussion is already

underway. No reason to fracture it. :) I appreciate your input there.

Maggie


--
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
__**_
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




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[MZMcBride]

Craig Franklin wrote:
>I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would not
>have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a credible
>argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
>major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively
>new and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good
>risk/reward ratio in my view.

You mean "has done their homework on this this time," right? The General
Counsel position is one of the oldest in the Wikimedia Foundation and the
Legal and Community Advocacy team certainly existed before the previous
Wikivoyage logo contest. If this were an issue, you'd think someone
would've said something six months ago. And, of course, there's no
shortage of trademark, patent, or copyright trolls in the world. I've seen
both logos and while they're obviously similar, I'm sure there are a great
number of lawyers who could make a number of arguments as to why there's
no real issue here. Anyone can send a cease and desist letter, right?

Presenting a logo selection procedure from a black box and then trying to
pressure the community to accept it as global policy within ten days
doesn't seem appropriate to me. "Ten days" is being very generous, as the
draft procedure is only fully translated into two languages at the moment
and we're fast approaching June 2.

There are also at least a few Wikivoyagers who are concerned that the
active participants of Wikivoyage weren't properly enfranchised during the
last logo contest. That is, there's a concern that the people most
involved with Wikivoyage will get drowned out by the much larger Wikimedia
community in any contest of this nature. This needs further thought,
deliberation, and discussion; however this is being rushed by an
apparently hard deadline from the Wikimedia legal team to change the
Wikivoyage logo no later than July 31. This isn't a great situation to be
in.

I would think some of these issues would be of concern to you. This isn't
about asking anyone to play chicken. It's about ensuring that communities
are free to choose their own identity.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[K. Peachey]

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:22 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> I would think some of these issues would be of concern to you. This isn't
> about asking anyone to play chicken. It's about ensuring that communities
> are free to choose their own identity.


Change it to a blank/transparent square for the logo at the current
time, Then let WV take as long as they want to choose a new logo?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

K. Peachey wrote:


Change it to a blank/transparent square for the logo at the current
time, Then let WV take as long as they want to choose a new logo?


In other words, let's remove their logo, even against their wish, and 
then let /them/ come up with a solution?


-- Tomasz

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[Craig Franklin]

On 2 June 2013 00:22, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
> >I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would not
> >have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a credible
> >argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
> >major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively
> >new and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good
> >risk/reward ratio in my view.
>
> You mean "has done their homework on this this time," right? The General
> Counsel position is one of the oldest in the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> Legal and Community Advocacy team certainly existed before the previous
> Wikivoyage logo contest. If this were an issue, you'd think someone
> would've said something six months ago. And, of course, there's no
> shortage of trademark, patent, or copyright trolls in the world. I've seen
> both logos and while they're obviously similar, I'm sure there are a great
> number of lawyers who could make a number of arguments as to why there's
> no real issue here. Anyone can send a cease and desist letter, right?
>

The WMF Legal team are good, but they're not *that* good.  I'm sure if
Geoff and the gang were capable of foretelling the future to see if they'd
get issued with a cease-and-desist, they'd be spending their lottery
winnings in the Caribbean rather than dealing with trademark issues.

There are also at least a few Wikivoyagers who are concerned that the
> active participants of Wikivoyage weren't properly enfranchised during the
> last logo contest. That is, there's a concern that the people most
> involved with Wikivoyage will get drowned out by the much larger Wikimedia
> community in any contest of this nature.


Obviously this is a valid concern, but that's best dealt with by making
sure that the best process is in place for the logo competition, not by
complaining about something that, lets face it, is not going to change.
 Obviously, for those that were unhappy with the last logo process, this is
an opportunity to have an improved contest this time around.


>
> I would think some of these issues would be of concern to you. This isn't
> about asking anyone to play chicken. It's about ensuring that communities
> are free to choose their own identity.
>

Well, obviously I'd be happy for them to pick whatever identity, so long as
it's not infringing on a trademark.  In other words, they can't have the
Golden Arches or Mickey Mouse ears! :-).

More seriously though, while I suppose the WMF might conceivably be
eventually victorious in court on this sort of issue, the expense would be
enormous and the legal team's time is much better spent on things other
than fighting battles over non-core principles with international
organisations.  I also suspect that the WTO has a fair bit more cash to
splash around on fancy lawyers to fight this than we do.  It's not a nice
situation to be in obviously, but it's better than the Foundation having to
waste its money fighting this in court.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Maggie and Michelle, thank you for this update.

I see that 4 people noted similarity to the WTO logo in the first
round of voting. Another noted that while he liked the logo, it should
be modified to be significantly different in the second round... but
that did not happen. (none of the variants were selected)

We should probably have an explicit step in selection that reflects on
similarities to other logos, and the likelihood that this would be a
problem.  And it would be nice to get a heads-up on the wiki when
these sorts of takedown notices are received, whether or not we choose
to fight them.

> MZM writes:
>> There are also at least a few Wikivoyagers who are concerned that the
>> active participants of Wikivoyage weren't properly enfranchised during the
>> last logo contest.

Yes, and they were considering revisiting the logo selection anyway
now that the site has gotten underway.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage/Lounge#Wikivoyage_Logo

Every logo contest to date has been somewhat ad-hoc; this one will be
also -- hopefully managed by the Wikivoyagers.  It's a fine idea to
RfC a standard process that can be used for future contests, but that
can be done in parallel to any current logo selection (as I commented
on meta).


Craig Franklin writes:
> More seriously though, while I suppose the WMF might conceivably be
> eventually victorious in court on this sort of issue, the expense would be
> enormous and the legal team's time is much better spent on things other
> than fighting battles over non-core principles with international
> organisations.  I also suspect that the WTO has a fair bit more cash to
> splash around on fancy lawyers to fight this than we do.

Yes on all counts.  I was involved in a similar process at One Laptop
per Child - we did fight, since it was about a core logo, but it took
two years to resolve completely and was a real pain.

Sam.

--
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Minutes from the April 18-19, 2013 Board Meeting

[Frédéric Schütz]

On 31/05/13 21:58, Stephen LaPorte wrote:


The minutes of the WMF Board Meeting on April 18-19, 2013 have been
approved and published:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18

The meeting's agenda included:

> [...]

I also see under "Fundraising Agreements" that "Sue updated the Board on 
the chapter fundraising agreements for 2013-14".


Is it possible to know more about this ? As a board member in a 
fundraising chapter, I don't remember hearing anything about the 2013-14 
fundraising agreements so far, so I'm obviously curious about the updates...


Frédéric

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board approves FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding recommendations

[Lodewijk]

Hi Patricio,

thank you for your quick reply.

I checked the link you provided, and I understood that to be a message on
behalf of the two board observers, not so much the outcome of a discussion
of the full board. But maybe that is my mistake, and this message was
indeed after discussion of the full board, made on behalf of the full
board. Basically, I'm trying to understand a little better who's "we" in
the various occasions.

This confuses me because I understand from the descriptions on meta [1]
that the report of the ombudsperson is supposed to be presented to the
(full) board together with the FDC recommendation, which suggests to me
that it would be considered at the same time as well, rather than by the
board observers/representatives themselves. From your answer to the first
question this isn't entirely clear - I hope you can clarify.

I hope you will understand that this is not so much to frustrate the
process or change the outcome (I doubt it would have an impact), but to
clarify the process for the future, and clarify who exactly makes what
decision and based on what. In my understanding it would be the full board
(through its 31 May resolution) to decide on the way the appeal is
responded to formally, and not the two board representatives.

If the appeal report was part of the considerations of the board, it would
have made sense to me to refer to it in the resolution. Also it would make
sense to me if there was a link tot he appeal and the report following that
appeal on [2], but that is mostly a matter of convenience and having the
information together of course.

Best,
Lodewijk

[1]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#complaint
[2]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Board_decisions/2012-2013_round2


2013/6/1 Patricio Lorente 

> Hi, Lodewijc!
>
> 2013/6/1 Lodewijk :
> [...]
> >
> > Basically my questions are:
> > * Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this
> process
> > or does that process stop at the ombudsperson?
> Yes, in fact the Board representatives at the FDC posted a formal
> answer after receiving the ombudsperson report [1].
>
> > * If yes, what was the decision on that and why was it not communicated
> in
> > the resolution?
> As you can find in our answer, we decided to support the FDC
> recommendation. There's a full explanation there about why we decided
> that way.
>
> > * Are links to the complaints intentionally made scarce on meta or is
> this
> > an oversight for example because this is the first time such complaints
> > have been filed?
> As with the previous question, I think you are making this one because
> you missed our formal answer to the complaint, which, by the way, was
> inmediately communicated to the Chapter's representatives. But anyway,
> if you have any idea that could improve the whole process, we will be
> happy to consider it.
>
> Thank you,
>
>Patricio
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2#Response_from_Board_representatives
>
>
> --
> Patricio Lorente
> Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
> Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
>
> ___
> 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 Board approves FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding recommendations

[Patricio Lorente]

Hi, Lodewijk!

2013/6/1 Lodewijk :
> Hi Patricio,
>
> thank you for your quick reply.
>
> I checked the link you provided, and I understood that to be a message on
> behalf of the two board observers, not so much the outcome of a discussion
> of the full board. But maybe that is my mistake, and this message was
> indeed after discussion of the full board, made on behalf of the full
> board. Basically, I'm trying to understand a little better who's "we" in
> the various occasions.
>
> This confuses me because I understand from the descriptions on meta [1]
> that the report of the ombudsperson is supposed to be presented to the
> (full) board together with the FDC recommendation, which suggests to me
> that it would be considered at the same time as well, rather than by the
> board observers/representatives themselves. From your answer to the first
> question this isn't entirely clear - I hope you can clarify.
>
> I hope you will understand that this is not so much to frustrate the
> process or change the outcome (I doubt it would have an impact), but to
> clarify the process for the future, and clarify who exactly makes what
> decision and based on what. In my understanding it would be the full board
> (through its 31 May resolution) to decide on the way the appeal is
> responded to formally, and not the two board representatives.

The answer comes from the Board representatives at the FDC but
obviously it reflects an ongoing discussion of the full Board. I agree
with you that the framework should be clearer at this point, and we
(in this case "we" means Board and staff) will work to make it more
accurate.
>
> If the appeal report was part of the considerations of the board, it would
> have made sense to me to refer to it in the resolution. Also it would make
> sense to me if there was a link tot he appeal and the report following that
> appeal on [2], but that is mostly a matter of convenience and having the
> information together of course.

Yes, you are right, and perhaps that is my fault. I thought that
anyone who was following this issue would know that report in advance.
Thanks for pointing that out.

  Patricio

--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo

[Peter Southwood]

So we stand up to small bullies, by not to big ones.
Nice to know where the line is drawn when it comes to principles.
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: "Craig Franklin" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage logo



On 2 June 2013 00:22, MZMcBride  wrote:


Craig Franklin wrote:
>I'm sure that the legal team has done their homework on this and would 
>not
>have made this recommendation unless they felt that the WTO had a 
>credible

>argument.  Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a
>major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively
>new and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good
>risk/reward ratio in my view.

You mean "has done their homework on this this time," right? The General
Counsel position is one of the oldest in the Wikimedia Foundation and the
Legal and Community Advocacy team certainly existed before the previous
Wikivoyage logo contest. If this were an issue, you'd think someone
would've said something six months ago. And, of course, there's no
shortage of trademark, patent, or copyright trolls in the world. I've 
seen
both logos and while they're obviously similar, I'm sure there are a 
great

number of lawyers who could make a number of arguments as to why there's
no real issue here. Anyone can send a cease and desist letter, right?



The WMF Legal team are good, but they're not *that* good.  I'm sure if
Geoff and the gang were capable of foretelling the future to see if they'd
get issued with a cease-and-desist, they'd be spending their lottery
winnings in the Caribbean rather than dealing with trademark issues.

There are also at least a few Wikivoyagers who are concerned that the
active participants of Wikivoyage weren't properly enfranchised during 
the

last logo contest. That is, there's a concern that the people most
involved with Wikivoyage will get drowned out by the much larger 
Wikimedia

community in any contest of this nature.



Obviously this is a valid concern, but that's best dealt with by making
sure that the best process is in place for the logo competition, not by
complaining about something that, lets face it, is not going to change.
Obviously, for those that were unhappy with the last logo process, this is
an opportunity to have an improved contest this time around.




I would think some of these issues would be of concern to you. This isn't
about asking anyone to play chicken. It's about ensuring that communities
are free to choose their own identity.



Well, obviously I'd be happy for them to pick whatever identity, so long 
as

it's not infringing on a trademark.  In other words, they can't have the
Golden Arches or Mickey Mouse ears! :-).

More seriously though, while I suppose the WMF might conceivably be
eventually victorious in court on this sort of issue, the expense would be
enormous and the legal team's time is much better spent on things other
than fighting battles over non-core principles with international
organisations.  I also suspect that the WTO has a fair bit more cash to
splash around on fancy lawyers to fight this than we do.  It's not a nice
situation to be in obviously, but it's better than the Foundation having 
to

waste its money fighting this in court.

Cheers,
Craig
___
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