Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

Milos Rancic wrote: >My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional >discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is >wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees >are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years. >However,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

> Eh I'd argue at this point we have a fairly good idea of what went on. > > We know from the high employee turnover in some areas and the odd slip > (well that and pretty direct complaints > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Transparency_Gap=15199687=15199605 > ) that, oh lets

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Database administration support (was Re: IRC office hours: Shared hosting)

If anyone is opposed to any of these things, please say so: (1) adding database administration staff; (2) not buying premium name-brand equipment or any equipment with e.g. BIOS-to-JTAG back doors; (3) opposing the TPP portions deleterious to movement interests; (4) opposing the recently

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

Blind, impotent rage isn't helpful, neither are conjectures about the abstract and nebulous nature of "something". Let's try and remember, this is the same pattern as every other last time, most people commenting here are in agreement, this was wrong or at the least, this was handled poorly, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration. But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Database administration support (was Re: IRC office hours: Shared hosting)

No idea since I have no idea what most of those things are. You could try making it more clear, for starts by using the full expressions rather than the abbreviations. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" wrote: > > Something is covered in NDAs. I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And they weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside of the movement.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

John: I hope we can have an open discussion. (: I feel that NDAs may be making bad situations worse. There are good reasons to keep some things confidential, but I think that more openness and transparency would be helpful in regards to the WMF board in particular. Milos: thank you. Yesterday I

[Wikimedia-l] Something

We should start talking about Something. Something is the raising issue of our movement. Its properties are not yet known, but all of us feel the consequences of Something. To tackle the problem, we should define it, first. Yes, we know it's called Something, but besides the name, we know just a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

Something is covered in NDAs. -- John ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

Kevin, ==Re opinion== I didn't mention anyone in particular, I was asking for people to reflect on their contributions, and that more people contributing here is better than the same people going around again. [I would prefer the mature approach that each author review their own posts and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

Hoi, So there is another shitstorm.. I experience it as increasingly militant and unpleasant and irrelevant for me, GMAIL has the option to mute and the other threat has already been muted. So a new thread was opened with a call to reduce the noise level.. From my perspective, the board does

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something? (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA Thyge 2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic : > On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" wrote: > > > > Something is covered in NDAs. > > I heard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1] (and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2]) A. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement [2]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

Let us have our movement new year's resolution be for an acronym-free 2016! Thanks, Pharos On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1] > > (and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the > other thread

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1] > > (and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the > other thread was the India Education Program[2]) > (my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not