I think that the idea of taking the weekend off from the topic is excellent.
We may not have reached universal consensus yet but everything we needed to
have said was, and it's been acknowledged as received and under consideration.
Have a good weekend everyone.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
>
I agree with Pine's comments. Lots of good things happening and great content,
and that should not be minimized in all this. If I left that impression then
my apologies to the content creators and annual report staff on those points.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 5:10 PM
On Mar 2, 2017, at 11:13 AM, James Salsman wrote:
>> politics damages our brand in real and serious ways.
>
> Such as how? This assertion keeps being made without any evidence supporting
> it.
>
>> It's more ammunition for everyone else's distrust and fear of our community
>> and organizati
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> I note this discussion is leaning "I totally am not offended myself,
> but unspecified others might be." I think some posters need to own
> their own discomfort more.
>
> The trouble with liberality is a tendency to shy away from wishing
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:14 AM, James Salsman wrote:
>
> On the contrary, the left-wing is the only source of credible,
> trustworthy, and bias-free information on a wide variety of topics
> such as climate change. Equating neutrality with credibility and
> trustworthiness is a clear mistake,
My two cents.
I agree with the sentiments in the statement/report.
I don't feel comfortable seeing them from the WMF. I would not be comfortable
seeing them from a PBS mission statement or report, a Humane Society report,
the Red Cross, ... ok, the ACLU has about said as much. But I feel tha
Have them hit whatismyip.org and tell us what shows up..,
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> wrote:
>
> I've been receiving complains via Facebook from people of Angola about not
> being able to create new accounts, some know something about it? They
On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> On 17.06.2014 17:26, George William Herbert wrote:
>> We need an Uncommons, where the strict open license / PD rules are abandoned
>> and we accept images as long as their fair use can be established. And
>> don
nt
for Commons, and putting it in said search path.
This has gone on too long.
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Jun 17, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Osmar Valdebenito
wrote:
> If you take a look at the undeletion requests after the URAA discussion,
> most o
and foundation. It seems to be agreed that documenting usual
parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net
positive.
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guide
Way to completely miss the point.
Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of
views. Nothing anyone has said disputes that.
If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr
On the other hand, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
A long successful history associated with the Chatham House Rule.
It sounds like some variation on this was intended for the meeting.
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 7, 2014, at
paying customers actually
calculate bandwidth issues for their applications and generally say no. The
ones who say yes tend to be academics in strange corners of the money / compute
cluster CPU vs IO trade space, and are ok with building their own.
-george william herbert
On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland wrote:
> 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
>> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote:
>>>
>>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>>> countries where the law is le
+foundation-l
On Aug 20, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> This is an acceptable trade-off which we've allowed the Chinese government
> to make for us before, and here we're talking about a much smaller effect
> (on contributors only).
>
> Again, it's not our business to fix China. China
15 matches
Mail list logo
