Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about progress and benefit the movement on a global basis? Best regards, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Frederic, On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote: On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote: Hi Phoebe, thanks for your answer ! It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result. Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the user group label, as far as I'm concerned). What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not you should have a good track record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws. What I understand the board is saying is: if you have a fantastic track record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization. How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ? I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation. I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ? I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before. Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility. For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC). SNIP thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know. We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups. The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get exceptions. Hmmm I would say that 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case. would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the decision's impact in specific cases. I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear. I'm referring to the current consensus of the community, i.e., the feedback being received about this decision. Cynthia On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of. Risker/Anne On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com wrote: 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 to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about progress and benefit the movement on a global basis? Best regards, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Frederic, On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote: On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote: Hi Phoebe, thanks for your answer ! It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result. Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the user group label, as far as I'm concerned). What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not you should have a good track record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws. What I understand the board is saying is: if you have a fantastic track record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization. How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ? I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation. I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ? I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before. Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility. For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images
Stripes. Yeah, right. Clearly, Rory is wearing tats of their own. Totally covered in 'em! I'm calling foul. Delicious, organic friends... I wanna see a photo of Tux to verify life. Something's not right here. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Rory roaaa...@wikimedia.org wrote: First, I want to make clear that I express no opinion on the ink conversation. I respect the diverse points of views in our community. I understand that everyone has their own stripes. That said, I am deeply saddened and frankly shocked by allegations voiced by certain people in this thread that somehow I would consider eating Tux, the official mascot of the Linux kernel. As a supporter of the free knowledge movement, I hunger for role models like Tux. Penguins are known for their outstanding qualities[1], and, showing my good taste, I recognize that my small LCA Foundation profile [2] hardly matches the prominent recognition of Tux’s Wikipedia article. [3] I accordingly decided long ago that Tux was off the menu. To the contrary, I offer my paw in friendship to Tux. Some say that open source animals are full of bugs, turning them into organic delights. I do support organic meats. I mean friends. Organic friends. Delicious, organic friends. I am really hungry now. (I’m not allowed to eat legal interns anymore.[4]) Tux, let’s get together soon, real soon, maybe over lunch. Best, Rory Mascot, Legal and Community Advocacy *Disclaimer:* I cannot give legal advice because I am not licensed to practice law. I am also a stuffed toy animal without human intelligence. [1] http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2008/05/what_does_penguin_meat_taste_l.html http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2008/05/what_does_penguin_meat_taste_l.html [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Rory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux [4] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Church,_Frederick_Stuart_-_Church_Tiger_having_eaten_professor_-_1905_-_large.jpg ___ 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 -- Best regards, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson Yes. *Her again.* ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium, including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos, photographs, and x-rays. The only person legally entitled to release this information is the patient or individual holding medical power of attorney. You can find more information here: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: As I'm running out the door, two things to point out factually: 1) people who work in U.S. hospitals are very often independent contractors, especially physicians. 2) much medical diagnostic imaging is done on an outpatient basis at an independent imager. Even if the imager has copyright, there's no way to know whether there is a standing assignment agreement or not. Additionally to confuse things, HIPAA mandates access to (but not necessarily copyright in, though I haven't really looked at it) medical records, as well as disclosure and protection requirements. Dan Rosenthal On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Max Harmony m...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: 2012/8/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: Under US law (I know very little about the law of other countries): Unless the patient somehow contributed creatively to the image (broke his bones in a certain creative pattern), it's certainly not the HMO or patient. If the X-ray tech is an employee, then it's certainly not the X-ray tech. But the copyright of a work for hire goes to the employer. The X-ray tech would get the copyright, but they're employed by the hospital. The hospital, in turn, is employed by the patient. As such, I would think the patient does own the copyright. If the X-ray tech is an employee (and the work is created within the scope of his employment, which I am assuming), then, under US law, the tech never gets the copyright. The employer is the author. The tech is completely out of the loop. As for the hospital being employed by the patient, not in the sense of work for hire law. For the patient to get the copyright, they would need to enter into a work for hire agreement, the details of which are long and which you can easily find online. Is a similar logic not applied to, say, wedding photos, in which an photographer is employed by a company which is in turn employed by the couple? Wedding photos are more complicated. I could see an argument, under some factual circumstances, that the couple (and/or the decorator, etc) might own copyright as a joint author. Or they may have employed the photographer directly. Or they may have commissioned the work under a work for hire agreement. Or they might have purchased the copyright in a copyright transfer. Or they might just not own the copyright in the work at all. ___ 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 -- Best regards, Cindy Ashley-Nelson Yes. *Her again.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Join in from afar for the Smithsonian Institution Edit-a-Thon!
Count me in! On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: (Pardon the crosspost) Hi everyone! Our second Smithsonian edit-a-thon is going to start in about an hour (1 PM EST) and we'll be utilizing an Etherpad compliments of Wikimedia DC http://notes.wikimediadc.org/**p/SIEdit2http://notes.wikimediadc.org/p/SIEdit2 Feel free to join in! We'll also be utilizing the #glamwiki hashtag. Our goal is to improve content about Smithsonian people and places and we've love your help - translations, lending a hand, writing something yourself, whatever! See you there :) -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today https://donate.wikimedia.org/** __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Best regards, Cindy Ashley-Nelson Yes. *Her again.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
