Hi,
I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
have any say on who gets onto the board in the appointed seat). I
On 06/25/2011 10:50 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
have any say on who gets
Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the
policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be
listed inside of the section Tasks of the members list [2]. During the
next weeks present requests
Hi,
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
*individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a
Hi,
On 25 Jun 2011, at 05:52, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
While preparing Missing Wikipedias [1], I've got numbers of speakers and
languages by area and country with chapter not covered by Wikipedias.
Fascinating! Thanks for the work! :-)
Isabell.
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
*individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this
advice
to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of
On 06/25/2011 12:38 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded
through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The
fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
I think that the argument is valid
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
discussion.
*
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
On 06/25/2011 12:49 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
discussion.
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
No, Ting has
So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision
about that requires a Resolution.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a
On 06/25/2011 12:54 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision
about that requires a Resolution.
I don't think that it is needed because Board has the final word anyway,
Forwarding Deryk Chan's email and my response on his request.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Languages and numbers
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:55:58 +0200
From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
To: Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 01:28
I posted this on the India list (many people are not subscribed to
foundation-l) - forwarding this question which just popped up.
Bishakha
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vickram Crishna vvcris...@radiophony.com
Date: Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l]
The web itself is passé
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6
Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 06/25/2011 03:11 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
I posted this on the India list (many people are not subscribed to
foundation-l) - forwarding this question which just popped up.
First of all, although numbers look fascinatingly precise, they are far
from that. When you make a sum of
I also agree that a resolution is needed. Two individuals don't speak for
the whole board and I'm not willing to take your word on it. Up until now
the community has had the say over which projects were closed through the
proposals for closing projects and you throw out the statement that
On 06/25/2011 04:32 PM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
I also agree that a resolution is needed. Two individuals don't speak for
the whole board and I'm not willing to take your word on it. Up until now
the community has had the say over which projects were closed through the
proposals for closing
On 06/25/2011 07:35 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
To clarify my position, I found the procedure as designed for handling
appointed seats to be inherently unworkable. I don't think the procedures
could have been followed during my service on the committee given the
resources and time
on 6/25/11 2:18 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/25/2011 07:35 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
To clarify my position, I found the procedure as designed for handling
appointed seats to be inherently unworkable. I don't think the procedures
could have been followed during my
On 25 June 2011 19:18, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
My general position is that Wikimedian community is diverse enough to
fill expert seats from itself.
You are probably right, but who would make the better board member: an
average lawyer (or whatever) that's a Wikimedian or a top
On 6/25/2011 1:50 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi,
I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
have any say on who
Hi
Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board member
to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons for having
appointed members is to get an outsiders perspective. This is generally
considered good practice. Basically the idea behind this is
On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi
Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board member
to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons for
having appointed members is to get an outsiders perspective. This is
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi
Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board
member to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons
for
Actually, Facebook's losing members this year, not gaining, in the US
/ North American market.
Not that this is relevant to the WMF. The great thing about the web
writ large is that everyone can participate in the things they chose
to. Facebook's popularity is orthogonal to WMF participation /
On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:46 PM, George Herbert wrote:
How do I manage the political factions on ANI or an Arbcom case on
english language Wikipedia to deal with this policy / behavior
problem is something that very few *insiders* can do well...
That's not the board's job though, and misses
The general observation that we should be easier for everyone to edit
is reasonable, and that doing that and more outreach would help the
rest of the world contribute more effectively.
(I did in fact see this in my previous email, but forgot to erase the line
about you missing my point, as
On 06/25/2011 08:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 25 June 2011 19:18, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
My general position is that Wikimedian community is diverse enough to
fill expert seats from itself.
You are probably right, but who would make the better board member: an
average
28 matches
Mail list logo
