Re: [Wikimedia-l] Request for comment on global bans

2012-07-08 Thread ENWP Pine

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?

2012-07-08 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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?

2012-07-08 Thread Birgitte_sb
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?

2012-07-08 Thread Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
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?

2012-07-08 Thread Nathan
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?

2012-07-08 Thread Tobias Oelgarte
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?

2012-07-08 Thread Tim Starling
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?

2012-07-08 Thread John Vandenberg
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

2012-07-08 Thread Gregory Varnum
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