In France we we're that far [me showing a little space between my
fingers] to get a similar law in 2006 and 2009. The law passed but all
the site blocking things were removed following some lobbying (in
which WMFr did not take part but some of the members did on a personal
level).
All the plan
I think that is exactly Michael's point. ChapterS appoint two board members. So
no single organisation expects the two members selected to push one chapter
agenda.
On the other, what Jimmy propose is that one organisation appoints a
representative in one other organisation. Hence it would be
Hi, sorry for top posting.
A quick historical note, really early on some chapters had a WMF representative
with a lot of power. We moved from that next to a lawyer recommandation as it
created legal links between WMF and chapters hence increasing the legal risks
for all the organizations and
Hi,
I've got an awkward feeling toward this whole thread. I'll try to explain why.
For years, every single discussion has been WMF versus the chapters.
few years ago it kinda made sense as we had so different issues and we
were trying to codify the relationship between our organizations
through
Hey,
This is a video infographic about Wikipedia and its history. Enjoy :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXD1TRGafQ0feature=player_embedded#
--
Christophe
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Hi,
Happy new year everyone :)
I'm not gonna answer all the points raised in this threads as I don't
have all the elements (I didn't enjoy the animated banner for
example).
But I'd like to comment two points :
I/ The urgency to raise at the end of the fundraising. While I do
agree it could be
In Wikimedia trolls are memes. So we're at our rightful place :)
Christophe
--Message d'origine--
De: Svip
Expéditeur: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
À: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Répondre à: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Objet: Re: [Foundation-l] xkcd's map of the
On 21 July 2010 10:00, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/07/2010 01:57, Florence Devouard wrote:
This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in
various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two
The thread is interesting. What sv. did is, from my perspective,
applying the same rules to Wikimedia logos that applies to all the
other logos. Wich is just rational for me. Not that I agree, just it's
rational.
Wikipedia should be made of free contents, logos are not free, they
remove the logos
Hey,
I've read most of the topic on my blackberry so might have missed some
point but I'm surprised of the reactions.
In my opinion there's only two questions Is OM an organisation close
to WMF and supporting other NPO sharing some of WMF goals ? the
answer is yes. So I don't see the problem in
2009/8/9 Peter Jacobi pjacobi...@googlemail.com:
The issue is still unresolved.
de:User:Mautpreller, who filed the original complaint, just affirmed
that there is still no answer.
See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission
So, just doing
And what about the people reading all the mail of all the mailing list, they
know Wikimedia damn, they too should be allowed to vote.
And the people making donations, they're supporting the projects too, they
should get a vote.
Or not. I'm not fond of the idea. Contributors to the project elect
2009/7/27 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/7/26 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
Thanks.
Lodewijk
Doesn't appear to be.
--
geni
13 matches
Mail list logo
