Re: [Wikimedia-l] Request for comment on global bans
Hi Steven, I agree with you that there should be a “fair and consistent way” for enacting a global block of an account. My concerns are about the process and circumstances under which this may happen. I think that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee proposal has good potential. The committee could handle confidential information, and would be less vulnerable to battlefield conduct and sockpuppet manipulation than a global RFC for a global block of a user. The committee would be able to handle cases that individual stewards feel uncomfortable with handling, and it would hopefully any prevent any wheel-warring. I think that the committee wisely isn’t structured as a global arbcom, although I might suggest a different name such as “Global Coordination Committee” because its scope is broader than locally initiated requests. I chatted briefly with steward Matanya who gave me permission to say that from his personal perspective he thinks that a committee that is separate from the stewards would be “a good approach”, although he suggested that stewards-l would be appropriate to contact for comment on this issue. With that in mind, and since the current state of the RFC on your proposal, roughly nine days after commenting began, is about 50% for and 50% against in its current form, I would like to offer to work with you on revitalizing the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee proposal for a successor RFC, taking into account the comments on that page and at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans, any comments from Philippe about how this committee might be structured in such a way that WMF would trust it to handle ban requests from the office, and comments from anyone else who’d like to give input. Thank you, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed. Again why is not free? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all. Birgitte SB On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed. Again why is not free? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Do you read my email? * me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed.* * you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks.* idealists? sorry? If you will start to attack me, at least learn to read. And reading your text, sorry, but your knowledge of license, is shallow. And I'm unhappy with the fact that we have values and do not put it in all our instances. Not with anything you said. I know various projects that images of their logos are under a free license, this is not idealism, is to be what we ask others to be. I do not know to be aggressive in an argument that you are not obliged to participate and you was not even mentioned... *This I do not understand at all.* *PS:I just inquired three times the answers, if I can not do more, I think Stalin was right. I'm going to Siberia.* -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: Do you read my email? * me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed.* * you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks.* idealists? sorry? If you will start to attack me, at least learn to read. And reading your text, sorry, but your knowledge of license, is shallow. And I'm unhappy with the fact that we have values and do not put it in all our instances. Not with anything you said. I know various projects that images of their logos are under a free license, this is not idealism, is to be what we ask others to be. I do not know to be aggressive in an argument that you are not obliged to participate and you was not even mentioned... *This I do not understand at all.* *PS:I just inquired three times the answers, if I can not do more, I think Stalin was right. I'm going to Siberia.* -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 You're not winning any hearts and minds communicating in this style. Perhaps you should find someone who can more persuasively and politely argue your points and hand it off to them; repeating yourself in progressively more surly tones is not going to get you what you want. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Your answer would imply that we never ever should try to combine a free image with any of our logos in a single work (not a collection). I wrote the reason in a previous mail already. We would have a copyright violation if the new work is released under a free license since the logo isn't free or we don't release it under a free license which is a copyright violation of the free image. This is a dilemma and the only reasonable/responsible consequence is to not create such an image and to delete all images which are subject to this issue. Given this ugly situation i have to ask: Why? We have hundreds, thousands if not millions of files which have restrictions (de minimis, personal rights, FOP, ...) aside from copyright law. The logos are just the same but are treated entirely differently, despite the fact that it is much more like that one of the other (not so) free images is reused in cases which are against the law. I just don't get your argument. nya~ Am 08.07.2012 22:17, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all. Birgitte SB On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argentonrodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote: As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed. Again why is not free? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
On 09/07/12 06:17, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. To be precise, the logos were not released under a free license because it was imagined that some day they would be trademarks. According to the trademark searches I did just now, the Wikipedia logo was only registered as a trademark in 2008, and the other projects as late as May 2012. The WMF felt that trademark licensing would be a useful way to raise money, as a complement to donations. For example, this website has a trademark license: http://wikipedia.wp.pl/ Obviously to support that sort of licensing arrangement, you need at least one sort of protection (copyright or trademark). Also, there was concern that a free license like the GFDL might be argued to be an implicit trademark license. Lawyers tend to be conservative on that type of issue. Currently, WMF does not even publish the 3D source files for the Wikipedia logo, or a high-resolution rendered image. I think that's a bigger problem than the lack of a free license, since it prevents people from improving the current poor-quality 3D rendering and contributing the results back to the project. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
If wmf has trademarks secured, now is the time to release the copyrights and high res. versions. Idealistic maybe. But when we talk to the public, we talk about ideals. Its odd that community members cant put logos of community-run projects into slides. Its unfortunate that wikipedia doesnt meet the debian definition of 'free'. Etc. On Jul 9, 2012 7:25 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 09/07/12 06:17, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. To be precise, the logos were not released under a free license because it was imagined that some day they would be trademarks. According to the trademark searches I did just now, the Wikipedia logo was only registered as a trademark in 2008, and the other projects as late as May 2012. The WMF felt that trademark licensing would be a useful way to raise money, as a complement to donations. For example, this website has a trademark license: http://wikipedia.wp.pl/ Obviously to support that sort of licensing arrangement, you need at least one sort of protection (copyright or trademark). Also, there was concern that a free license like the GFDL might be argued to be an implicit trademark license. Lawyers tend to be conservative on that type of issue. Currently, WMF does not even publish the 3D source files for the Wikipedia logo, or a high-resolution rendered image. I think that's a bigger problem than the lack of a free license, since it prevents people from improving the current poor-quality 3D rendering and contributing the results back to the project. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC
That is an encouraging update - thank you. -greg aka varnent On 8 Jul, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC. Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled then. But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside of that narrow window. So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need to engage people who aren't available during normal business hours throughout the Western world. At this point, office hours have essentially become the same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever the topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm misunderstanding. Just to follow up on this topic... Saturday we held the office hours for the editor engagement experiments team. As Risker pointed out, we did get it a crowd that was slightly different, mostly people who were from North American timezones likely to be working or in school during other office hours. It felt like a success to me. I think in the future it will be fruitful to hold some office hours outside normal business hours West Coast time, though obviously not everyone will want to work on the weekends all the time. ;-) Regards, Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l