On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
I do.
Bots do.
2009/1/7 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
A friend of mine put my attention to this blog post [1]. I didn't read
it as it is too late now (I just heard friend's description of the
article), but I think
Yes. For fun, which brainstorming needs. Ever since Jamesday stopped
spiking the punch in the virtual server room, the bugzilla quote list
+ mascot hasn't sufficed.
SJ
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an
I usually agree with the Mingus, but:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Monday 02 February 2009 22:41:37 Brian wrote:
Following this line of reasoning in both directions, many
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I advocate a much more flexible attribution scheme than listing the authors
or printing a url to the history page. I think a simple (Wikipedia) is a
sufficient attribution for text. If you have the text it is trivial to find
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
If you are willing to accept that a URL is sufficient, then there is no
reason to ever show the authors - it's only to accomodate the fact that the
CC-BY-SA contains a clause which isn't really relevant to the projects.
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Mike.lifeguard
mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm wrote:
just organize a time to get people together in #wikibooks on
irc.freenode.net. We'd set up a roster of topics to cover and
just fire around ideas for a while.
That's a fine idea. It might also be
Copying the Commons list.
I am interested in hosting (and running some scripts on) copies of the
commons media dump on offline regional servers for offline-reading
purposes. This is difficult without an image dump.
The last time I looked, I was able to find an image dump from 2007?
Now I have a
We should all try the xkcd cure for a while : stick to short words on
this list for a week and see where it gets us. (kat, is this curt's
law? what sorts of threads are star-crossed to end this way?)SJ.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent -- following up offlist. SJ
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/23/09 5:31 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Copying the Commons list.
I am interested in hosting (and running some scripts on) copies of the
commons media dump on offline regional
referencing with
decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR.
--
Samuel Klein
+1 617 529 4266
One Laptop per Child
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
However my central point that a discussion of something
thread convergence! It didn't include wikipedia-proper when I looked
yesterday, but this was suggested...
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
Thank you Ziko. I always enjoy the unfiltered news exacerbated by the
Kurier... you should broadcast your work more than once a year. And
Ms. Kimura is clearly a crack dictator, she should be miked up
regularly. SJ
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Milos,
This is a great post.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As it may be of interest here, I am sending my blog
posthttp://blog.millosh.org/2009/04/anarchopedia-changed-its-license.htmlto
the list.
And a couple of my personal notes:
- Anarchists
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, things are moving forward, this is true. And I will be happy to
see free culture movement based on Tolstoy's, Kropotkin's and
Goldman's ideas
Hi,
As has been mentioned elsewhere in comments on your writings, you have
good ideas which aren't directly related to nudity or sexual content.
1) respect human subjects of photos and other media
1a) get explicit model consent, both for models who are 'many meters
away' and for significant
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/20 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com:
I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
cultures? These things are
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Some of the NPOV-related problems may be solved by talking about
context. If we say that a single piece of art (or propaganda or
whatever) is not a context, then problems related to Commons are
solved.
Yes. Context is
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy
(I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP
issue).
I would feel better if we got model rights whenever using
Last post on this thread.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
which don't indicate that the subject
Welcome, Jennifer. The current foundation-l traffic isn't quite as
vibrant an intro to the community today as it was in 2005 or so. I
hope you will share your thoughts, even unformed!
For a historical taste, don't forget to visit the nostalgia wiki:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org
...and even
, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome, Jennifer. The current foundation-l traffic isn't quite as
vibrant an intro to the community today as it was in 2005 or so. I
hope you will share your thoughts, even unformed!
For a historical taste, don't forget to visit the nostalgia wiki
I would love more context for this (excellent, ambitious) discussion.
What timescales are to be considered? What range of scope
reassessment is appropriate?
A long-range planning section would be helpful, if only to provide
context for more immediate targets. For comparison, here is a brief
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/30 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
I'd like to see Wikimedia as a community take some 300-year stances on
knowledge dissemination,
Did you mean 300 years?
Yes. Considering the stakes and our capacity
I could use a revision history and list of related discussions for
this conversation. [perhaps a mailing list isn't the best or
highest-visibility venue, considering the audience]
Where else is this conversation taking place?
Are past discussions of high-priority questions relevant?
On Sat, May
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
* I was speaking with Lennart face-to-face, in Berlin -- although I think he
and
I have been having a version of the quality/participation conversation for
about a
year now. This conversation about the strategy
In a different thread, Sue Gardner wrote:
* Thanks Milos for advocating on behalf of a permanent Research Analyst! I
want this too.
An aside : many researchers in the community (of readers, if not
editors) are interested in research of almost any type associated with
WP/WMF data, and would
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Amir Elisha Aharoni wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden yonideb...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
Wikipedias?
Perhaps for issues so important that they demand
I'm splitting off a separate thread about long-term archiving. The
original thread is important enough not to derail it.
This is a big topic, and also one that has been addressed in many
different bodies of planning and literature. The Long Now foundation
has considered a 10,000-year library
layout?
SJ
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:12 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/5 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
I'm splitting off a separate thread about long-term archiving. The
original thread is important enough not to derail it.
This is a big topic, and also one that has been addressed
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I can tell you what the Rosetta folks would say: they would say that
they paid $125k to Norsam for 5 prototype discs, and that we are free
to do the same. Norsam have developed this technology at great cost
and
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wouldn't go quite that far. The idea of doing it (or having done it)
makes people feel good, due to the collective sci-fi-like fantasy
implicitly promulgated by the project itself -- a future world of
poverty and
* Of course this could be boiled down to part of a good comprehensive
article on Wikipedia in the same way that all wikiprojects could be
merged into WP if one were so inclined...
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/7 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
I
david gerard writes:
No, no. All wikiprojects could be merged into *Wikibooks* if one were
so inclined. The encyclopedia is clearly only one book in the library,
it's just by far the biggest one.
Indeed. Or into Wiktionary, since it's all just a matter of defining
in detail various keywords,
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
El 5/14/09 3:16 PM, private musings escribió:
- Commons currently hosts many pictures, taken in a public place, without
the apparent permission of the subject...
highly unlikely to me to be genuinely released
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is certainly a way to design such a feature to address the concerns you
list. I believe the real problem with such a feature is in content
selection. There are always the boderline cases and who puts in the work
A brief update:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Samuel Klein
The current amortized cost of making 10 nickel
discs (each with 10,000 pages in a 100x100 grid) is
around $500 each. They can also make
polymer copies for much less that are likely stable
for at least a century.
The amortized
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
time to lose : content compatibility with
, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next major step, for which
Hello,
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on August 1 of this year.
I am crossposting this from the licensing thread
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
Wikipedia -- and they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
updates over months or
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause that allows GFDL wikis to be relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3
expires on
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
issue and few people caring. From a legal point of
As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
what is being said they will still be
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
So it did. Wikipedia follows much stricter rules of reuse, which is
fair, as it is
This is a good thought-experiment to rerun regularly : working through
what 'all human knowledge to each person in his/her own language'
means (practical approximations of all, each, and own, c).
I think at a minimum, without trying to directly solve high-upkeep
projects such as hardware
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Tisza Gergőgti...@gmail.com wrote:
Tisza Gergő gti...@... writes:
I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether
the people here find it acceptable is another question).
Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy
Michael Snow writes:
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I read those comments primarily as
a defense against a perceived prosecution for allegedly violating the
privacy policy.
I don't read them that way - rather as saying This isn't clearly in
violation; it has been working for a long time
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Stan Shebsstansh...@earthlink.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/6/15 Rama Neko raman...@gmail.com:
Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
of the service
I agree this is important, to the projects and to the progress of flagged
revs as a concept (which is still one step of a long journey). It is worth
a quick thread on f-l for that reason if not for general interest.
Sj
samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
On Jun 19, 2009 6:47 PM
There is a wealth of work done all the time by primary source
researchers and publishers, which could be improved on by having
wikisource entries, translations, c.
Related question : how appropriate would large numbers of public
domain texts, with page scans and the best available OCR [and
Yes, but my understanding is that while google provided part of the mbp data
and scans, its continued updates to ocr since then are not being shared. I
would be glad to learn this was not the case...
samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
On Jun 21, 2009 3:14 AM, Nikola Smolenski
What are examples of something which is fair use under chinese law but
not under US law? goes to check the discussion
In general you should not upload anything that violates US law.
Additional standards are set by each community - in terms of free
license v. fair use, whether an image is being
If PRC law says that factual statements published in PRC media cannot
be copyrighted, then those statements may be available under a sort of
PRC-PD license for anyone to use, including zh.wp -- it would not be a
matter of fair use.
Under PRC law, are statements of simple fact *published outside
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a
common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an
article.
Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation. is correct; so are
The English Wikipedia, the
... but it doesn't sound right to me. [On the other
hand, I'm having a hard time thinking of a social or practical
movement whose name doesn't have a 'the' in it.]
SJ
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor
This is lovely! I know it has been under discussion for quite some
time, congratulations. Will there be coverage of the cultural event
on the new project? -sj
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
First, I want to thank to Tim who created the project [1] today.
Hello Frank,
This sounds very cool. Which Wikipedians will be there? Is it open to
anyone at the NIH? Is there a public agenda?
SJ
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Frank Schulenburg
frank.schulenb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Every day millions of people access health information online.
These are fabulous - thank you! I absolutely agree that smaller (but
interesting) lists would attract more people if they saw what sorts of
discussions happen there.[the technical dump-processing list is one
example...]
Sj
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
* Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current
rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
* I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot
the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the
purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw
for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain,
strategy.wikimedia.org
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder
after distracting people with setting up basic
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5
Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These
are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for
mainstream media.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.comwrote:
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit
of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other
people's thoughts.
That will be great.
There's a tradeoff between starting with
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to
drive attention towards some existing technologies and initiatives -
We have a simple and popular mechanism for creating portals. Why not ask
the
Thanks for sharing that, fred. It is interesting indeed! Are you going to
be in nyc by any chance this wknd?
samuel klein. s...@laptop.org. +1 617 529 4266
On Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM, Fred Benenson fred.benen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi There,
Im a long time lurker on this list but work
When I say world of WP I mean world post-WP -- the world we live
in, in which certain businesses are failing now that basic reliable
information and data are available freely...
It would be healthy to see compatibly-licensed projects that use
different sets of core principles; not just wikinfo
As specific examples:
It would be great if every publisher of any sort that does basic data
mining and research into primary sources were to share that work
directly on WP and sister projects. Publishers using free media and
spending time and effort vetting their licenses should update the
I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how
they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and
visualizations of this sort of knowledge.
You cannot copyright ideas, nor should one copyright the simplest
expression of them. The merger doctrine specifies
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
ideas.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
As a response to concerns over the proposed
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/7/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start
new Projects?
I would suggest that we use
[[Presentations]]: Are there any modern lists of speakers about the
projects simiar to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presentations/speakers ? I bet that
as a group we could get speaker or panel invitations to a number of
digital library, elearning, linguistics, c conferences for people who
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Guillaume Paumierguillom@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Guillom.
Is there someplace other than [[Presentations]] and [[Posters]] where
people are expected to share new media?
No. But these pages are not publicised a lot.
True. They need a set of navigation
I could see this happening on Wikisource.
I mention it as another project because it would eventually involve
importing and organizing freely available metadata on roughly ten
million books, and defining a style guide for helping organizing
citations and comments about each as a source -- very
Another interesting point that knol drives home is : Google has a
limited conception of what human collaboration looks like : how to
identify it, how to harness it. Their efforts to support
collaboration are very one-to-one, small-group or single contributor
walled gardens that can be made
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can give you some models in which Knol, properly structured, could have
replaced us altogether. In some sense that might be a victory for free
PM, Lars Aronssonl...@aronsson.se wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote (in two messages):
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published
work, statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion
about its usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with
OpenLibrary, merging WikiCite
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting concept. It's hard to replace an open collaborative
process, but I think this is a subject worthy of a planning workshop
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Lars Aronssonl...@aronsson.se wrote:
Let's take a practical example. A classics professor I know
(Greg Crane, copied here) has scans of primary source materials,
some with approximate or hand-polished OCR, waiting to be
uploaded and converted into a useful
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
This is important: NO ONE WAS DISENFRANCHISED BY THE ERROR. People
were given suffrage who weren't entitled.
This comment makes my skin crawl. Everyone is entitled to have a voice and
it is only the Board's impoverished
Feature Request Aside : I would appreciate having a preference to turn
on aggressive use tracking for myself -- to provide me with personal
statistics about my own site usage. Currently there's nothing other
than a watchlist (or hand-created/edited page) and some toolserver
tools that track edits
. It would be best not to duplicate work on several places.
Personally I don't find OL very practical. May be I am too much used too
Mediawiki. ;oD
We still need to create something, attractive to contributors and
readers alike.
Yann
Samuel Klein wrote:
This thread started out
This seems like an amazing chance for WikiProjects in almost any area.
Describe how your work supports open education, set a project with
milestones and metrics for success, and submit a grant request:
http://blogs.talis.com/education/incubator/guidelines/
SJ
-- Forwarded message
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Erik Zachteerikzac...@infodisiac.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I am of course thinking about the list of 1000 articles
each wikipedia should have. Just completing a
significant part of that list is an accomplishment for
a tiny pool of editors, but
Andrew,
This is a great response and anecdote.
I have regularly run across people working on EOL, which has a broad
staff one of whose tasks is to keep an eye on species-data resources
around the web; and they are generally quite positive about
wikispecies, and thinking about ways to better
Hello,
There is a QA session with the whole board scheduled for this
afternoon at 3:45 EST, at the end of Wikimania:
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule
It will run for an hour. If you have questions to ask but are not
physically at the event, you can post questions in
Hello Mark,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
I'd personally place myself on the objecting to WMF expansion side, at
least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with
Yann -
A nice draft. you might want to add collaborative, editable,
versioned, multilingual, annotated database of all published works
(you may want more than just books).
To Lars and DGG: OL is doing just fine for some definitions of the
terms involved. But it needs ways for crowds to help,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Chadinnocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Andre Engelsandreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation holds technical control over the wikipedia domains;
nothing can be done but by the foundation to for example rename a
wiki.
A purely
I met a few people helping out with Wikimania, including the lead
photographer on site, who got involved with the local Wikimedia
community after their photostream was found on Flickr and incorporated
into Wikipedia (es:wp)... Discovering your work has been used by
someone else is always a nice
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
The announcement makes it clear this is intended for the new board
members
On 9/8/09, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/9/8 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
What could be the cause of this recent dearth of new projects?
Certainly the process for getting a new project underway
This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it
is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and
announcements.
It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have
serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging
in private,
I agree with Tim's initial points.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/
If you allow posting via email, then you lose the ability to properly
authenticate those posts. If you allow receiving of
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Some of us feel that the foundation has become out of our reach.
That no matter how much we discuss and try to reach consensus it will just be
too
hard,
Is this related to the foundation per se? This is just a
Tisza, this is very well put.
On 9/11/09, Tisza Gergő gti...@gmail.com wrote:
- the discussion space is divided by time, not by topic. What little
topic-based
Yes. put another way, 'there is no natural namespace to fill and
revise over time as all useful discussions are traversed'
- the
I find projects to build large catalogs interesting; many of these are
simply not done well online. If you have a free catalog, you can
visaulize its elements on a map / with search; add reviews and images
and comments to what was previously uncommentable. Some potential
catalogs:
Organizations
I always read Domas's posts, because they raise my spirits :)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, for those who fail at reading comprehension, let me point out to
the report from ED to board:
a desire to defer equipment purchases while various
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I propose expanding the notion of the Wikimedia
That is lovely; thanks for the announcement, mike. sj
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Mike.lifeguard
mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I wanted to let folks know that WMF is decommissioning some 35 servers,
and is willing to accept
1 - 100 of 310 matches
Mail list logo
