Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

2014-02-11 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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

2014-02-11 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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

2013-07-12 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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

2012-08-20 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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!

2012-05-25 Thread Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
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