Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
point out that there has never been a vote for this position.
Risker/Anne
On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule betie...@bellaliant.net wrote:
Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
Ebe123
On 12-04-22 4
that they have
failed to do the job properly.
I note the plan to create accesses to CRMs for community uses in Q3 of
the draft Engineering annual plan. I'd encourage the Ombudsman Committee
to ask that they be put at the front of the line for access to this
software.
Risker/Anne
on public forums, where there's
no telling who might decide to respond and put their two cents in.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what
that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think
that clerking would be useful. In other words, this decision is at least a
few months down the pike.
Risker/Anne
On 1 May 2012 16:47, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 5/1/2012 12:37 PM, Risker wrote:
On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardnersgard...@wikimedia.org** wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it
would make sense for us to use volunteer
of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide whether
or not you're going to have a cafeteria.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 1 May 2012 17:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2012 22:11, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support. The type of
support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and
responsibilities are, though
.
Let's try to find some middle ground here, okay?
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
that have come up, specifically on Erik's meta
userpage, have not been given the courtesy of a reply.
Risker
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap
On 1 June 2012 19:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Fully enabling IPv6 has been
from cover to cover
yet; it refers to the previous coverage from June 2011, and quotes Erik
Moeller from some unknown and unspecified source. I don't know where he
told the community that. Do you?
Risker
On 1 June 2012 20:10, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow Risker, you obviously don't
, it
doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable
logs, provided it's consistent.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
weeks by checkusers
were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can
hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects.
Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the
Arbitration Committee.
Risker
My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped
up when I cursored over this.
Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with
respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman.
Risker
On 13 June 2012 19:37, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com
is an effort to assume
good faith.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
response,
and I think this is a good thing.
On the other hand, what's being proposed here is essentially providing
sockpuppeters or otherwise disruptive users (such as those under certain
types of sanctions) a how-to guide so they can avoid detection in the
future.
Risker
is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm
misunderstanding.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 25 June 2012 13:56, 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
On 26 June 2012 07:47, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:
2012/6/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
On 25 June 2012 13:56, 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
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in
Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all
those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote
think.
I think your questions illustrate the need for improving some of the prose
within the guideline so that these issues are clear to future readers, both
inside and outside of our broader community. It's quite possible that my
own interpretation is off the mark as well.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https
something
like this with Google?
Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should
handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole
Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?
Risker/Anne
reference source. (Highbeam's scans sometimes come out a
bit funny, particularly the symbols, for example.)
Risker/Anne
On 11 August 2012 17:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
I'm still trying to figure out whether these partnerships are a good or
bad thing
are added in, or if your proposal
is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading
to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased
white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on
the eyes.
Risker/Anne
and not a copyright timesink. It would be a shame to
return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that
there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On
many projects, that is no longer the case.
Risker/Anne
://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_editing for a
placeholder.
Just for the record, there's a difference between paid editing and conflict
of interest editing. One can easily have a conflict of interest without
receiving any financial remuneration.
Risker
No, they should not. Those applications contain a very significant amount
of private information.
Risker/Anne
On 21 September 2012 17:22, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
I also think all recipients should be publicy disclosed as long with
their applications for transparency purposes
no good answer here. In an ideal world, there would be lots of
Open Access journals with low processing fees that would publish good
peer-reviewed scientific studies regardless of their popularity. There's
a long way to go before this will make fiscal sense.
Risker/Anne
and tweed jackets.
--
You're correct; a lot of them are paid journalists, and the rest are paid
columnists.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
well guarantees squatting and (b) has the potential to create so
many options that there's no reasonable way to suggest there's anything
close to agreement.
Risker
On 28 September 2012 14:50, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a squatted name that people *really* like, there could
Concur with Philippe. Thanks for letting us know about this.
Risker
On 22 October 2012 17:59, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Now that's just cool...
---
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
as best I can tell was never publicly discussed the last
time it was changed), I think that would certainly benefit from community
input.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 18:25, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
(just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm still
very
Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
resolutions?
Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton
.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had
folks,
snip
- It’ll give us the ability to add Director-level leadership functions
as appropriate without making my head explode.
snip
An excellent motivation. :-)
More seriously, this sounds like a reasonable way to separate the functions.
Risker/Anne
, as
there will be more opportunity to focus on any issues that they encounter
and to address improvements that they suggest.
Good luck to the fundraising team in the campaign that's about to kick off,
and the new one in April.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
know about it. I agree
completely that this is something you want to target at experienced users
who have an interest in testing out the new software - and I think as the
bugs get worked out, you're going to find plenty of people who gravitate
toward it.
Risker
growth. We probably *do* need a group with the authority
to settle longterm content disputes, another with the authority to
harmonize and simplify the policies, and another to improve the
enculturation of new Wikipedians. I do think the community knows that it
needs these things.
Risker
] tracks.
WSC
I have to saythis is brilliant. Plus it made me laugh out loud.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
of a person's voice is
actually information about the person, either, except in the way that
their fingerprints are.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The link you provided said Wikipedia board manual, Jan-Bart. The correct
link is:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_manual#Roles_and_responsibilities
Risker/Anne
On 19 February 2013 01:52, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hey Nemo,
I seriously
decided this is a Wikimedia-wide
issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the
Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so?
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On 23 March 2013 21:21, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 March 2013 02:19, Risker wrote:
James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a
Wikimedia-wide
issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the
Committee whose decision you
Just in case others had problems with the links (thanks gmail...)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/May_2013_-_Article_IV_Section_6_%28Vacancies%29
Risker
On 22 April 2013 16:54, Alice Wiegand awieg...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
as Ting has announced in his
Congratulations to both Jan and the Community Advocacy team. :-)
Risker
On 25 April 2013 16:40, Santi Navarro santiagonava...@wikimedia.org.eswrote:
Welcome Jan!
Dear all,
I am delighted to announce the expansion of the Wikimedia Foundation's
Community Advocacy team to include our
but eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
every year that involves the entire community.
Risker
On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
been granted the right to vote
that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
of the Election Committee,
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
.
And you meant Wikivoyage, didn't you?
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
board
members, they are exactly the same. A modification was made for developer
voters to reflect the change in the way that code is committed.
Risker (member of the Election Committee)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Well, not wanting to wade into that pirates' little helpers snarkiness,
but it takes 30 seconds from anywhere on the web to find a copyright
violation. Maybe a bit longer if you have a slow connection.
Risker
On 9 July 2013 23:36, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 07/09/2013 08:37
registered users who wish to use it. Registration is not
really the key issue here.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ
Well, all I know is that we have a couple million instances of {{hat}} and
{{hab}} unbalanced templates, which are used daily on hundreds of pages,
and they serve a very important function.
Risker
On 29 July 2013 22:58, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/29/2013 10:02 PM
On 29 July 2013 23:18, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 07/29/2013 11:10 PM, Risker wrote:
which are used daily on hundreds of pages,
and they serve a very important function.
Yeah, but they are duct tape over weaknesses/flaws in wikimarkup, not a
valuable feature
can only offer a
subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
hasn't.)
Just noting in passing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l
On 31 July 2013 13:32, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 31.07.2013 15:07 schrieb Risker risker...@gmail.com:
On 31 July 2013 08:36, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
de:wp convinced you
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
Risker
On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
How is this related to the foundation?
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
See attachment.
http
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same issue is under
discussion on the Wikitech-L list.)
Risker
On 31 July
non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not
sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional
association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in
writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use
of medical images.
Risker
On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe
is a more entrenched philosophy.
And I'd not necessarily bet on individual institutions taking a different
position than the Medical Council, either.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
Will anyone else from the team (including upper management) be
participating, or will it be only James?
Risker
On 28 September 2013 14:48, Maggie Dennis mden...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, Rupert.
Oh, I see. Upcoming plans would include deployment plans and ongoing
development. It's not a big
* to be a discussion
about access to non-public information; however, I was unaware that the
latter discussion had started.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
in the
testing.
Risker
On 16 October 2013 01:08, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.inwrote:
Chris, as Ziko put it. Would you like a novice driver with a Learner's
permit to drive on a Crowded street or a High speed expressway or in a
deserted ground?
Visual Editor for newbies has caused
, so I don't
know that it is really all that helpful.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject
edits. With the much reduced load now, it is much
easier to spot these problems.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ
the line into at least perceived conflict of interest.
Risker
On 22 October 2013 09:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a
conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore
the FDC's
Hi Maggie -
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is
that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first
session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Risker
On 30
in an area where exact times are very important, and we don't ever
use hours; we use 2359 or 23:59:59 or 00:01 or 00:00:01.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
that
whatever we were talking about would start at 00:01 UTC
NMarco
___
Thank you, NMarco - that's exactly what I needed to know.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On 30 October 2013 12:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is
that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the
first
session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3
that is the
expected standard for full scholarships.
There should be only a marginally higher overhead in managing partial
scholarships; both types required the same amount of effort to send
reimbursement for airfare.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
are the equivalent of the cost of a cup of coffee and
a pastry in most of Europe, North America, and other wealthy
countries. It's bothering me, and I live in one of those well to do
countries.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
contact, replacing it with another technological
whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
expected from Wikimedia.
Risker
On 13 January 2014 17:36, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit thank. I hit
okay
effective way to persuade people to turn it into an
actual page.
Trialing the process on some small projects that actively volunteer to
participate would be a first step.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
giving wise counsel.
Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.
Risker
On 4 February 2014 07:05, Samuel Klein
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40:
Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...]
You're putting words in his mouth. Saying
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
..
The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
working away on English Wikipedia.
As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
some sensible non-controversial work
in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.
Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved
commentator.
I'm not defending the treatment of any individual editor, David. I'm
saying that it is wrong
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:
doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list
Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion
of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention
not sure which consensus you're speaking of.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.comwrote:
Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
statement presented
or opposed motions.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.comwrote:
2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com:
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3
to share their knowledge from
those experiences.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Heh. So the Wikimedia representative was in Finland?
Still a bit of correction coming, I think.
Risker/Anne
On 3 March 2014 14:05, Stryn@Wikimedia strynw...@gmail.com wrote:
The corrected report seems to be
http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2014/03/02/5152/Report-submitted-to-police
core
objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group. I'm not
interested in that.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l
On 13 March 2014 22:38, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
If the Trustees have decided that we should pay advocates,
snip
Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l
.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F
It's the name of a department Legal and Community Advocacy or LCA for
short. That's not really the same thing.
Risker/Anne
to
do here. In fact, I'd be concerned if they're poking around on this when
there are several matters well within their mandate that are not apparently
being addressed.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 03:07, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Although much of my original email to Arbcom about
conferences. There is
definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
being ignored completely.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:
But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
arguments can't come
or employee of one and (3) be granted authority to attend this
conference. Those are very big hoops to jump through in order for
non-aligned Wikimedians and movement participants/supporters to participate
in the discussion.
Risker/anne
On 2 April 2014 14:32, Cornelius Kibelka jckibe
While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around
the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
consideration for future planning.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole Ebber
will be able to adequately voice ideas other than the status quo.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 17:17, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected
for the preparation of the Future of the WMCON session at WMCON
itself, not for changing
that, if for no other reason than
conflict of interest: the FDC is funded from that budget.
Risker/Anne
On 3 April 2014 21:32, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Which part do you think is a joke? The same notice is posted on all the
proposal forms
is being reported as part of the WEP, what
projects are affected, and which programs have more participants.
Thanks!
Risker/Anne
On 6 April 2014 21:30, Jaime Anstee jans...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Greetings,
(Please pardon any cross-posting)
The final in our series of the Evaluation Reports
interfacing; those are public statements made by
individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those. I'm not seeing a lot
of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single
individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them.
Risker/Anne
is former employees trying to use our articles to bring problems
to light about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be
done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment.
Risker
commerce accounts on
some other projects, I'm not sure it would work universally.
Best,
Risker/Anne
On 19 April 2014 19:17, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On a second thought, do we want to add an optional affiliation field to
the signup form, so the affiliation goes at the end
On 25 April 2014 15:17, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi Risker,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an
independent third party review if it feels that there is not the
necessary
ability for the FDC to produce its own
1 - 100 of 420 matches
Mail list logo
