On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
Thanks for this repost, Laura.
I don't know where 18 months comes from, but it is much much too long :-)
It might be more accurate to say that our project proposal process is
broken, and we simply need to fix it. The Meta process for requesting a new
project is what I have in mind. As
Great analysis SJ.
By the way - since we're talking about working with other organisations
outside of Wikimedia Projects, there is another Strategic Planning taskforce
that people might be interested in weighing in on.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alliances_and_Partnerships_Task_Force The
Amen!
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful
for us to
welcome such interest rather than frustrating it,
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
I agree with what Phoebe and William have written, and I'll just add a
few minor points and then a thought about the process of new project
creation.
* When dealing with the WMF and Wikimedia community, you might want to
avoid the language of business acquisitions; it's extraordinarily
unlikely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could someone let me know why we need a bureaucratic process (I mean
bureaucratic without the connotative value) to approve new projects
when there has been exactly zero proposals since 2006 that actually
needed to be approved? (And in fact, there is
2009/11/29 Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com:
As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really
probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made:
(...)
This sort of presupposes that WMF, on the whole, wants to acquire
projects. My understanding
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Mike.lifeguard
mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have
been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a
process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
Does it
Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation
policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the
English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not
necessarily be subject to the same
Hoi,
You might have waved a red rag, time to hoist the pirate flag... What
nonsense. Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest project and indeed
it gets most of the attention and most of the tender loving care. HOWEVER,
there are other projects that are most definitely not encyclopaedic and
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
wiki. This isn't as coherent as I would like.
To give some back story that might not have been as obvious in our initial
proposal, we were interested in
Laura,
It seems unlikely if only based on We have no notability requirement.
Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
Fred Bauder
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Laura,
It seems unlikely if only based on We have no notability requirement.
Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
There are proposals that have been there a
year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Strategy wiki wasn't even set up a year
ago.
It was created in July. Proposals weren't accepted until almost
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts, a
proposal with nothing going on for the last year are lively, considering
there are proposals on there dated as far back as 2004, a number of them
dated 2006. For those who aren't terribly active in our community, seeing
'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
2009/11/29 Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com:
As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure.
The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has
been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
I think
I'm going to post a clarification as there seems to be some confusion
regarding my post:
After we got back the original e-mail from some one at the WMF, we were
asked by four or five parties to try to continue along with the process in
order to present WMF with a kind of case study for this
I'd toss in there lack of realistic expectations from your project,
especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This alone can
account for much of the other things you view as breakdowns.
-Dan
On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I'm going to post a
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
wiki.
snip a lot of detail
As some one who has proposed a new project for the
On Nov 29, 2009, at 11:04 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
Questions that I'd like to see
discussed on a large scale are:
* Do we want any new projects? Right now? In the future? Ever?
* If so, do we only want projects that follow traditional reference
book models of organizing information? (e.g.
Hi, Laura. I'll stay out of the main discussion here, but I just wanted
to address one point as a bystander who has spent a lot of years
involved with Internet startups:
Laura Hale wrote:
[...] There are other places we would like to approach.
(And if you have ideas for who would be a good
22 matches
Mail list logo
