On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >
> >... there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much
> > and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages
> > in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're
> > related to our vi
Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>... there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much
> and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages
> in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're
> related to our vision, our mission, our strategic plan, and our
> model of community
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > I think there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and
> >what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and
> >large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our vision,
> >o
Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I think there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and
>what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and
>large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our vision,
>our mission, our strategic plan, and our model of community go
Based on the message from James Alexander,[1] there is a long history to
this line of discussion that I've missed -- so maybe this has been covered.
But I'd like to underscore James A's point, from a different perspective.
( tl;dr -- Build a consensus around a desired course of action, *then* seek
James,
You have continued this, and related, lines of questioning of multiple
staff members and of the community for quite some time now. It is clear
that you have not received an answer that you find satisfactory, and I
understand that, but may I ask what makes you think that you will receive
an
Hi Geoff,
Would you please clarify which of the advocacy topics below, if any,
are precluded by the restrictions at
https://web.archive.org/web/20120621122539/http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html
?
Since multiple people have claimed that some are without saying which,
it woul
Thanks, Tillman, I still get the error below and a timeout from archive.org,
so a Wikimedia annotated copy would really help.
I am specifically interested in which items in
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-March/000420.html
are precluded.
" We have redesigned the IRS.go
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
> Your link to
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
> in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
> me what it used to be for some reason.
Just on a technical note, I
James, do we need to take Geoff's time up with something so thoroughly
documented elsewhere? I'd suggest starting with this web site:
http://www.clpi.org/
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
> Your link to
> http://www.irs.gov/charities/
Hi Geoff,
Your link to
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
in [1], which is cited in turn at [2], is dead, and archive.org won't show
me what it used to be for some reason.
Do you please have a current link for the IRS regulations concerning
political advocacy by
Hey folks,
The purpose of this note is to remind you that the WMF will be
participating in the FDC Process Round 2, which begins tomorrow. I'd
like to invite you to comment on the plan-in-progress, which will be
at this URL within about 24 hours:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposal
12 matches
Mail list logo
