Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is
"private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could be used
to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an
opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and
proble
On 20 October 2015 at 18:00, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
>
> And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a publi
Hi All,
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera. I
Hey, Pine-
As I think you know, I'm a fan of surveys :) And I'm pushing for more use
of them in Community Engagement. But I'm hesitant to commit the team to any
one specific survey. Few points about where we are on surveys:
-
*Targets: We are doing surveys to English Wikipedia (e.g. comm tec
On 20.10.2015 23:40, Romaine Wiki wrote:
I do question why some members from the community should be involved in
chapter/affiliates issues.
If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference
from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was
created.
And t
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
affiliate member, want to have feedbac
I do question why some members from the community should be involved in
chapter/affiliates issues.
If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference
from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was
created.
And there is no transparency reduction. The sugg
As you might be aware, it's Open Access Week! Now in its 8th year, this
annual event highlights the importance of free licensing in scholarly
research. It's a cause strongly aligned with what Wikimedians do.
There are at least two online events involving Wikimedia that you can
engage with regardle
Hi,
My suggestion is to take care with using the term "limited liability",
because it sounds like this might mean a different thing in my jurisdiction
and in my jurisdiction. As has been pointed out, volunteers in a user
group may be exposing themselves to significant risk of something goes
badly
Hoi,
I very much appreciate the format ... This program has shown its quality
over the years and is unafraid to ask what matters most. It is why people
will work together well. It is because it is about their agenda and the
agenda holds the items they care for.
Wonderful !
Thanks,
GerardM
O
Hi all,
Please have a look at the timeline for the Wikimedia Conference
2016[1], which already incorporates the feedback from last year: This
year, we will work closer with the participants when we create the
programme. In the registration, we will ask for concrete needs for
capacity building supp
11 matches
Mail list logo
