http://www.benchmarkcs.com/hello.php?html143
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are selected
by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)?
From: Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Phoebe,
If concerned about equality, why not have two chapter seats and two community
seats?
From: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 2:52:46 PM
Subject:
Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of
Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders
would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a
point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not
in cases where it has not been
made aware of potential violations. Section 230 probably applies up to the
point where the Foundation refuses to take appropriate action.
I'm not a lawyer though, so I might be wrong here. What do you think?
Geoffrey Plourde
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
call Section 230 into question?
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: susanpgard...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, May
This is a interesting proposal, but I'd suggest taking the idea to Meta. There
is already a Symptom checker at WebMD, but it could potentially upon a legal
can of worms for WM to get involved in medical troubleshooting.
From: Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com
David and Erik,
I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global
blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them
imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project
does not automatically make them a troll on
I support the changes, its cleaned up my inbox and made the discussions I'm
seeing more worthy of attention. The list is running better than ever.
From: Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Veronique, what would be the maximum we'd want to go with a reserve fund. I
know that with Army Emergency Relief for example, they get dinged by Charity
Navigator for having massive reserves of money. What do you think the maximum
would be for Wikimedia?
That sounds like a good idea, maybe make it a Wikiversity course? Or run
training on IRC?
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 3:15:20 AM
Subject: Re:
Can we kill this thread? It appears quite clear that the Foundation staff have
decided to run the Craig ad, and nothing here will affect their decision.
From: Waerth wae...@asianet.co.th
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
There are some pages that should legally be restricted, like the bylaws. i do
believe that most pages should be open to public editing because of the risk of
some non member Aussie thinking of a better way to do something and being
stifled.
From: private
The only reason the servers and internet access produce CO2 emissions is
because of the defective and antiquated energy production systems we use across
the world. As we move towards more efficient and cleaner means of energy
production, the carbon footprint should decrease.
Moving servers
The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from
disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that
allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but
suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email
today
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's
Thats a great idea! The exchanges were the biggest clog previously, and this
seems like a reasonable warning to use.
From: William Pietri will...@scissor.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009
'06 wikiversity
From: Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 12:19:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Perhaps she mistook
Foundation level issue is whether or not a community have the right to exclude
a specific class or category of users from editing based upon unsubstantiated
claims of potential misbehavior?
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list
mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have
scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on
discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on
So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior?
Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed
hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt
the community, so lets block em!
Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on
what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help
wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others.I don't
like it is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on
We also might want to look into policy overhauls to reduce barriers to
contribution.
From: David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 5:53:35 AM
Subject: Re:
I see a lot of well meaning people responding here, but maybe its time to go
back to the basics. No non free pictures, period. No more bureaucracy plus cost
savings on not having to run the permissions systems.
From: Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com
To:
At first glance, my inclination would be recycle bin the proposal, but after
reading comments, I think there is some merit to the proposal. I would support
bringing this in and expanding it to cover group dynamics (Wikitribes). This
project could be valuable to sociology and psychology as it
Is 19.95 your cost? I'ver mentioned before that this is the best way to
effectively put them out of business.
From: Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 10:10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
While I like the idea of bounties, this idea actually has merit. To make him
work, I would give him the amount of money for childcare as a down payment,
with the wages payable on delivery. Can someone from the Foundation look into
this? We have quite a few talented mooks, who might be able to
We'll know tomorrow whats up.
From: Sfmammamia sfmamma...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 10:27:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Head of Communications position open?
No, the
I agree, vigilantism is not necessary and counter productive. The Commons Force
proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for whoever hosts it and
participates in it. It is not for a third party to intervene in a contract
between two people and only two people. If the Commons Force
A CC violation is not everyone's business. If A infringes on B's CC copyright,
and party C pokes A about it, A can tell C to bugger off. It's like filing a
DMCA notice when you don't own the work. Licensing is an agreement between two
entities, not the community.
It still isn't the place of a third party to police someone else's copyrights.
From: Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:32:09 PM
Subject: Re:
Why not the Signposts, Wikizine, and the SF mailing list? No need for
exclusives.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 1:43:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF
Its a serious charge that is difficult to prove. The publicly released
financial statements are too general in nature to be useful. The only way to
prove/disprove this allegation and head off others is for the Foundation to
become more transparent. It is natural for people to come to
The best way to end this in the future is to give the community a brief heads
up along the line of Hey y'all, we will be moving to NEW ADDRESS effective
DATE This lets us know beforehand that the business address is going to
change, and allows the Foundation to leverage moving support from SF
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:43:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/9/6 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com:
The plan may have been
I think that swearing in a battalion of global sysops is both necessary and a
better idea than electing more stewards. Vandalism looks bad and deters people
from contributing. Lets face it, who wants to visit a library with all the
books defaced in various shades of Crayons. Also, does anyone
Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I also consider expert seats a waste of space as that is why we have department
heads.
Then again, I suspect I am and always will be in the minority.
- a suggestion
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com:
Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I don't think that is the case. The board has a duty of oversight and
is generally responsible for high level
The single best way to kill them is to reprint the exact same books, then sell
them at the low low price of cost + 10%. When people start snapping them up
like fruitcakes, Alphascript will be finished.
From: Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com
To:
High Priest of Mediawiki?
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2009 5:59:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
Somehow I'm
Although I had already voted, I was not bothered by one tiny email reminding me
that I was eligible to vote. Thanks guys, hopefully this will get people to the
polls.
From: Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Correct, we have built a system that does not value new users, but rather seeks
to get rid of them. Its a pattern I have observed in some businesses as well.
Subconsciously, people hate change. While they consciously want new users or
wonder why the flow has stopped, their subconscious is busy
Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
valuable to all projects.
From: Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:06:10 PM
Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am
not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?
Geoffrey
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Digitizing isn't really that hard. You take a scanner, upload an image, label
it, repeat.
From: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:28:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol
This is pictures right? I fail to see how pictures aren't useable to everyone,
as they are universal.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too.
Has a US press release been sent out?
From: John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009
First, I doubt that the FBI would investigate a barratry complaint (Counselors,
does such a provision exist in the US Code?) If they did, the courts would be
reluctant to actually hear such a case because the person being prosecuted
would actually have to be present to answer to the charges. I
Dcoetzee cannot comply, as the deletions would result in the loss of his admin
bit.
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:32:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About
Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter
for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting)
seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but
rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let
For some reason, I am reminded of a Supreme Court case about the information in
telephone directories. Maybe because of the insanity of trying to put public
domain material under copyright.
From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
To: Wikimedia Foundation
For Supreme Court cases, would it be possible to have a bot pull the audio
decisions from Oyez, and convert them into text?
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, June 20,
If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it falls
under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it
falls under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
Malicious software or overloading servers goes well beyond ignoring a
ToS. Why
Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons stores
it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same reason. At this
point in time, I would class Commons as a service project (and wikisource as
well) because it provides a service to other projects and
themselves are repositories.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same
reason. At this point in time, I would class
List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:13:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons: Service project or not?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work
Just because several projects have decided to disable local uploads does not
mean that Commons is ready to accept them.
From: Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
PM, while I respect your opinions, I must express my strong disagreement with
most of them.
Your first idea is restricting sexual content from userspace. This would
encroach on personal freedom, because why shouldn't people be able to post
whatever they want in their personal space?
The
Did you consider starting off with asking for a simple disclaimer? If they
don't have it uploaded and one was sent, disregard previous statement.
From: Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com
To: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
I think that the general principles are a perfectly acceptable policy and
creating a compulsory policy is a bad idea. Each project needs the independence
provided by the general principles. Due to the vast diversity of the Wikimedia
family, we cannot make hard and fast rules and expect each
I agree with Austin. We cannot just force communities to adopt this new thing.
Lets try for a clean start.
From: Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:30:08 PM
attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to
license your contributions under 1.2 or any later version.
Any later version published by the FSF.
Therefore
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but
find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The
locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his
position. I see no merit in his claims for the following
at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out
but find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource.
The locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed
from his position. I
off at en:Wikisource
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles.
Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is
unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up
ideology. As administrators
This line of reasoning will end now. I am sick of seeing rants, tirades, and
personal attacks in my inbox. We have to improve our BLP policies, your sniping
is not helping that.
From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey,
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
From: Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 6:24:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input:
: Monday, March 2, 2009 8:46:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS
volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is
really shooting OTRS in the foot.
From: Aude audeviv...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
: Guillaume Paumier guillom@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:05:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p
: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it
appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the reason for
a lack
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not
Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I
absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these
unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone
Everything takes time. The techs will handle it when they get around to it.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia Foundation
Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much
of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires
more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of
requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under
I don't think that either the Foundation or Mr. Broughton will be complaining.
Drop it.
From: Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:59:15 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Help-book made
While I advised that a similar matter be dropped earlier, this has some
fundamental differences that I believe may have merit. Whereas the Missing
Manual is uploaded by a known mutual agreement, these photos are not
necessarily uploaded by mutual agreement.
In theory, we are supposed to have
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus
making them culpable.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:14:45
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I wrote:
To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
Geoffrey Plourde replied:
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question.
Rent is only a small part of cost. The whole cost should have
been
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Geoffrey Plourde said:
Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get
another taco shop?
Gregory Kohs responds:
I might be able to give
these allegations without access to Board
and staff documents. You therefore do not have the whole picture and have no
standing to criticize those who do. This attempt to create division has no
place and distracts us from the Foundation's goal.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
Wikia is a way to utilize MediaWiki for profit. The United States is a
capitalist society, and this should be encouraged. Also Wikia hosts many
fansites and I don't hear them complaining about people playing ball.
From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
To:
Mr Kohs;
You are beating on a dead horse. Mr. Vibber has brought forth a list of
perfectly valid reasons why this space was taken. LET ME REITERATE THE COST OF
REWIRING/RECONFIGURING SPACE IN CALIFORNIA. Why should a taco stand use a dry
cleaning shop when it can get another taco shop?
Mr. Levy;
I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question. Rent is only a
small part of cost. The whole cost should have been the arbiter in this matter,
and I suspect it was from the posts by personnel.
From: David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com
Beating on a dead horse is not a valid point.
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:47:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to
It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in
essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique
characteristics and their own unique laws. Also, we do not have interest for a
national chapter. By empowering these state/city chapters, we
The CC wrote this license and are likely to be considered authorities if there
was ever a court case. If their lawyer says this is acceptable, its probably
acceptable.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
:36:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
2009/1/21 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com:
It is extraordinarily difficult to found a US chapter, because we are in
essence a federation of 50 little nations. Every state has their own unique
characteristics and their own
How about we just close this thread. We do not need to rehash the debate, it is
a dead horse.
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59:39 AM
Subject:
domain: WIKIPEDIA.RU
type: CORPORATE
nserver:ns1.sedoparking.com.
nserver:ns2.sedoparking.com.
state: REGISTERED, DELEGATED
org:MADVOL Ltd.
phone: +7 095 1234567
e-mail: mad...@gmail.com
registrar: RUCENTER-REG-RIPN
created:2004.12.15
paid-till:
Its probably an oversight with regards to Bomis
I suspect Mr/Ms brooking is a wikipedian, if not its a simple changeover
process.
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent:
It appears that Madvol, Ltd is a scam company that registers domain names for
extortion. They have been used to register 3251 names. The email is identified
with 120something domains.
From: Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
Cetateanu;
Brion and his staff are extremely busy individuals. Also, renaming a wiki takes
quite a bit of time and if not done at the correct pace would be messy. I am
sure he will handle the rename as soon as he can, but patience is key.
Peace;
Geoffrey Plourde
Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:45:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
Geoffrey Plourde hett schreven:
I am sure he will handle the rename as soon as he can, but patience is key.
cough, please be patient! It's only been
Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 10:45:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
Geoffrey Plourde hett schreven:
Well if we want to decrease the backlog, we could suggest that people put up
money for desired extensions I know
will agree with me that
we first of all need to strengthen the fundamentals before we put another
floor on the existing building.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/16 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com
Well if we want to decrease the backlog, we could suggest that people put
up money for desired
/1/16 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com
Well what I proposed encouraged people to prioritize. For example, if 100
people donate 5 dollars each for semantic mediawiki, it might encourage an
outside developer to work on it, freeing up staff and saving money
Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a memorial
project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his concerns about the motives
behind this proposal.
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
