Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-11 Thread Kat Walsh
This was brought up during the 4.0 drafting process, but it was
ultimately rejected:

https://creativecommons.org/2012/08/29/ongoing-discussions-noncommercial-and-noderivatives/

We also proposed renaming NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved" to make
it clearer what NC does, but that too had insufficient support.

https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html

I'm not sure what the current attitudes are at CC but I think it's no
more likely than before.

-Kat

> Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
> > ("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
> > which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
> > against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
> > occasionally resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> >
> > https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> >
> > It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> > almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> > complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> > https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...

2016-07-13 Thread Kat Walsh
Geoff,

I remember having the great pleasure of welcoming you to Wikimedia and
helping introduce you to the culture and challenges of a very unusual
organization, and later having the great pleasure of working with you
as you served as a keystone of its leadership.

It would be impossible to thank you enough for everything you've
done--all of the public work that has been justly recognized and
applauded, and the iceberg of invisible work that comes with the role
that will never be publicly recognized, but which deserves the
recognition just as much. (And a particular thanks for all of your
work with the board, which I know came with its own set of
challenges!) The legal department is not always greatly loved in any
organization, and frequently not one that gets to be a champion of the
mission itself, but you have made this happen at WMF. Your insight and
guidance, your legal experience, your leadership, and your dedication
to the people and the principles of the movement have all been
invaluable. And your commitment to building the organization and the
people in it means you leave the legal department in good hands;
congratulations to Michelle and Stephen on their new roles.

And finally, for me personally, you have been a great mentor and a
great friend. Best of luck in your new position; they are lucky to
have you.

-Kat


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Geoff Brigham  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past five years, I’ve been honored to serve as the General Counsel
> and Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation. This job has been amazing, and
> I’m grateful to everyone who has made it so rewarding. It's now time for my
> next step, so, in the coming days, I will be leaving the Foundation to
> pursue a new career opportunity.
>
> I depart with such love for the mission, the Foundation, the Wikimedia
> communities, and my colleagues at work. I thank my past and present bosses
> as well as the Board for their support and guidance. I stand in awe of the
> volunteer writers, editors, and photographers who contribute every day to
> the Wikimedia projects. And I will hold special to my heart my past and
> current teams, including legal and community advocacy. :) You have taught,
> given, and enriched me so much.
>
> After my departure, Michelle Paulson will serve as interim head of Legal,
> and, subject to Board approval, Stephen LaPorte will serve as interim
> Secretary to the Board. I can happily report that they have the experience
> and expertise to ensure a smooth and professional transition.
>
> The future of the Foundation under Katherine's leadership is exciting.
> Having had the pleasure of working for her, I know Katherine will take the
> Foundation to its next level in promoting and defending the outstanding
> mission and values of the Wikimedia movement. Although I'm delighted about
> my next opportunity, I will miss this new chapter in the Foundation's
> story.
>
> My last day at the Foundation will be July 18th. After that, I will take a
> month off to recharge my batteries, and then I start my new gig at YouTube
> in the Bay Area. There, I will serve as Director of YouTube Trust & Safety,
> managing global teams for policy, legal, and anti-abuse operations. As with
> Wikimedia, I look forward to learning from those teams and tackling
> together a new set of exciting, novel challenges.
>
> For those who want to stay in touch, please do! My personal email is:
> geoffrey.r.brig...@gmail.com.
>
> With respect, admiration, and gratitude,
>
> Geoff
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

2016-06-07 Thread Kat Walsh
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Patricio Lorente wrote:
>>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
>>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
>>this time.
>
> Thank you for this e-mail.
>
>>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
>>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
>>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
>>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
>>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
>>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full calendar
>>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.
>
> This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?
>
>>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
>>transition period: $165,000.
>
> This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
> realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in the
> Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course, but
> this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at least
> a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
> notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.
>
>>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
>>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
>>compensation from it.
>
> I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the Wikimedia
> Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.

I left the board in the middle of this process, so I was present for
part of the discussions around what would happen but not all of it,
and my understanding may be out of date.

The understanding I left with is that the Special Advisor role would
be created and would be paid regardless of whether she was actually
being consulted--so that the outgoing ED would continue to reserve
time to be available, and the new ED would not have a financial
incentive to end the relationship early. However, this doesn't
guarantee that the relationship would continue to any significant
degree, only that the consulting time was already reserved and paid
for.

-Kat

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-22 Thread Kat Walsh
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:

> One phrase I see used quite often is "sometimes we need to break a few eggs." 
>  For those who are not native american english speakers, this is referring to 
> the need to move beyond shifting things around into breaking things apart, 
> letting people go who may not fit in the new plan, stopping things outright, 
> etc.  The eggs - people, projects, structures, policies, assumptions - need 
> to partly go away - be broken - in order to reform.
>
> Lila's vision here clearly calls the change campaign out as having explicitly 
> intended to break eggs.
>
> It further suggests strongly that this was the Board of Trustees' intention 
> in hiring her, and that they agreed with breaking those eggs.

I left the board during the search process, but remained on the search
committee. So while I cannot know what the board was thinking after
her tenure began, I can say that the search committee was not looking
for a "turnaround CEO"--at least to my understanding we were looking
for someone who would be able to execute better on some of the areas
(particularly engineering) where we wanted to make more improvements
but hadn't.

(Which would naturally involve some change--but sweeping reforms were
not envisioned; part of why Sue stepped down when she did was that she
felt the organization was basically stable and could be smoothly
handed off. It is certainly possible for someone to come in and decide
that was a wrong assessment, but it wasn't what the committee had been
looking for.)

-Kat

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Upcoming Changes to Community Engagement

2016-02-10 Thread Kat Walsh
Luis, I am very sorry to see you depart, and not only because I accept
the blame for the introduction. :-) Thanks for everything you brought
to WMF; I look forward to our continued path-crossing in the future.

-Kat

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Luis Villa  wrote:
> Hi, all-
> This is a bittersweet email to send. I still, and will always, love this
> place and this movement, but it was also time for me to go.
>
> Working with so many awesome Wikimedians (including WMF's staff) has been
> an honor and a privilege, and has given me many great experiences,
> memories, and a long watchlist ;) that I'll treasure for a long time. The
> list of people who I'd like to thank is long, so I won't bore everyone with
> it. However, I do want to particularly thank Kat, who introduced me to
> Geoff during his first week with WMF. That was ultimately the opportunity
> that led me to this incredible ride - so I quite literally owe it all to
> her. Many, many other people have been welcoming and friendly along the
> way, and I can't ask formore than that.
>
> I'm not going too far! I'll continue to be around the movement, both as a
> contributor, and to support Maggie and the rest of the department during
> the transition. I look forward to seeing where Community Engagement goes
> next - I believe the department will continue to support contributors in a
> healthy way, and I'm sure Maggie and my long-term successor will continue
> to build exciting things on the foundation we laid over the past year.
>
> Professionally, I have no firm plans yet. I plan to to take a few deep
> breaths and then explore some new opportunities in the legal, community,
> and tech spaces, as well as becoming a parent in May.
>
> If you want to be in touch (to talk about interesting opportunities, flame
> me for old time's sake, or just chat) I'm pretty easy to find: lu.is,
> @tieguy on Twitter, LinkedIn, and of course on my enwiki talk page.
>
> See you on the wikis-
> Luis
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> I am sad to let you know that Luis Villa, our lead for the Community
>> Engagement department, will be leaving the Wikimedia Foundation. A year
>> ago, Luis took on a big challenge, transitioning from the Legal Department
>> to lead the newly created  Community Engagement organization. In that role,
>> Luis and our teams were tasked with many recent community initiatives, such
>> as the creation of the Community Tech team, gender-related and
>> anti-harassment programs, and improved alignment of WMF annual planning
>> with the Funds Dissemination Committee. Prior to that, as Deputy General
>> Counsel he was responsible for a number of legal initiatives, including
>> licensing, contracts, and product counseling. I’m grateful for his counsel,
>> and his leadership in the WMF movement throughout these years.
>>
>> Later this month, Luis will transition out of his current position with the
>> Wikimedia Foundation to pursue other opportunities. He will remain in a
>> consulting role with the Foundation over the next few months, continuing to
>> support our ongoing strategy and annual planning processes.
>>
>> I want to thank Luis for his commitment to the WMF mission, and for the
>> inspired energy and contributions he has brought to our movement. I’m
>> looking forward to his future accomplishments and staying in close touch as
>> he grows in his career.
>>
>> Maggie Dennis will step in as the interim director for the CE team
>> effective immediately. Her deep community background, passion for our
>> mission, and outstanding teamwork are great assets in this transition. She
>> will also continue to serve as Director of Support and Safety. Maggie is a
>> respected leader, colleague, and community member. I am confident she will
>> bring critical insights, especially now as we plan for our next year.
>>
>> The work of of the CE department will continue as planned, and the overall
>> structure of the department (including the Community Tech team, which will
>> continue to report into the Product organization) will stay on-course. Our
>> goal is to ensure a smooth transition as we continue our progress to
>> improve the WMF support for our communities.
>>
>> It is my priority that the WMF continues to build upon the initiatives we
>> started in 2015 in support for the global Wikimedia community. Continued
>> leadership of the Community Engagement department at executive level in the
>> WMF is a part of delivering on those commitments. We will be looking to
>> fill the Community Engagement leadership role with someone with a strong
>> background in community programs, and an understanding of the Wikimedia
>> movement. We will also look to engage with you to find the right person for
>> this role. We will send an update on the next steps and the job description
>> shortly, which will include a further discussion of the role on-wiki.
>>
>>
>> Lila
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

2016-01-28 Thread Kat Walsh
The advisory board basically never gets used as a group (and IMO it
wouldn't really make sense to). In my experience, people named to the
list fill one of a few functions:

1. Big Names who don't have the time to commit to being on the board
or are otherwise unsuited to being one of the main decision-makers,
but whose formal association with the project makes sense and is
beneficial. (I think of Clay Shirky as one of these: he is busy with
his existing work, but he is a great champion of the projects; he's
given presentations and press mentions that were helpful, consults on
some issues, and has offered his university's resources.)

2. People who are prominent in some area relevant to the projects and
whose work touches on it, who offer their expertise in their
particular domain and may be all but invisible to others. (Melissa
Hagemann is an example--she is prominent in open access and the people
working in that domain have worked with her, but people outside of it
may not see her work.)

3. People who have held high-level formal roles within WMF and whose
continued connection is recognized through being named an advisor. In
an organization with Senior Fellows, this is probably what we would be
called; it basically recognizes that although these people no longer
hold their roles, they continue to be supporters and advisors and
would like to continue to be available to offer their input and
expertise. I fall into this role, for example, and the structure of
having the formal connection makes it easier for current board and
staff to call on me. (FWIW, I was named to the advisory board by a
resolution after my term ended, though I see the page is poorly-enough
maintained that I'm not listed.)

4. People we hoped would fall into one of these roles, but who have
not actually kept up the relationship or whose guidance turned out not
to meet our needs.

It is useful to have a formal structure to call on people for their
help; most of the help the AB members provided in my experience was
through 1-on-1 consultation (more by Sue than by myself). But I think
there are more people in category 4 than there ought to be. The
renewal mechanism was intended to make it easier to graceully remove
people who fell into that category without making it feel like they
were "fired", but as it turns out if you renew some but not others,
people will feel that way no matter how gracefully you try to do it,
and probably not wrongly--and since they are all people who were
originally named because of a desire to strengthen the relationship,
souring it by ending their terms is a very difficult thing to do,
especially when it is easy to keep them.

Yes, the advisory board is invited to Wikimania with travel expenses
covered, though of the few members who come, some pay their own way
anyhow; the financial cost is relatively small. (I would say I made a
principled stand to pay my own way last year, but really I just
waffled over it for a while until it was late enough that I'd have
been embarrassed to submit receipts.)

In my tenure the advisory board was considered a few times, but it was
just never a high-priority item; I am aware of it having been
considered again last year but not sure if anything came of it. The
main drawback I think of is that people tend to forget it exists until
too late in a decision process, and many who could usefully consult
them don't even know who is on the advisory board, what their
backgrounds are, and how receptive they are to messages, so it is hard
to use them effectively.

-Kat


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tanvir Rahman  wrote:
> As far as I heard, the WMF employees and Board use the advisory board
> according to their need. Sometimes they are share their thoughts as a team,
> sometimes individually, according to their expertise.
>
> I have mentioned to an adviser once that it would be better to have a group
> submission from the Wikimedia advisory board in the Wikimania to fill-in
> the community about their work and need. How do they work/collaborate and
> so on. It does not need to share anything confidential or something, but it
> helps the community a lot how this mechanism functions.
>
> T.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

2016-01-27 Thread Kat Walsh
Thank you, Patricio.

And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for
you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the
role, and that your considerable experience and skills would have been
valuable. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the task, which
is not a small thing to ask of anyone, and now in light of the
challenges and complications it would bring, your willingness to step
down.

-Kat

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Patricio Lorente
 wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
>
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
>
> Patricio and Alice
>
> 
>
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
>
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

2016-01-27 Thread Kat Walsh
I was considering whether to comment again on this thread, but with
this message I do not have to; I think it lays everything out
sensitively and thoughtfully, and I agree with everything in it.

-Kat


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> Hello Arnnon,
>
> It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in
> the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while
> you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely
> difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the
> benefits that may have been contemplated.
>
> Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately
> rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been
> the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been
> misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what
> those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully
> understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to
> elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However,
> the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the
> role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly
> destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and
> denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
>
> I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been
> touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting
> practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of
> responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have
> done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have
> understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you
> do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position
> to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily
> disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained
> on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been
> following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people
> to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake.
> I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot
> do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be
> able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence
> becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you
> can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over
> everything you do.
>
> The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human
> resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and
> you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also
> appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise.
> While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it
> has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues
> were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and
> afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your
> appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and
> contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces
> of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations
> such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how
> having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be
> anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it
> to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I
> think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an
> incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere
> presence on the Board is likely to cause.
>
> I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of
> positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal
> history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to
> explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the
> context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you
> would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of
> approaching this.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
>>
>> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
>> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how
>> amazing
>> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
>> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-08 Thread Kat Walsh
I wish the best for the new board, and for the movement. But I am
troubled to learn of this.

I have always welcomed the appointed seats on the board--in my
experience they brought useful perspectives and experience with their
view from the outside, and I don't expect them all to begin their
tenure as perfect representatives of the priorities and ideals of the
Wikimedia movement as the community-selected members are.

But as they are full voting members, participating in all decisions,
we have always expected them to share key values, and probably the
most important of those is integrity. It's always hard to judge
beforehand; what you really really want to know is how someone would
act in a situation they haven't yet been faced with. But if the news
reports are true (or even just mostly true) about Arnnon Geshuri's
role in the staffing scandal, then this is a disappointing choice by
the WMF board. (Of course, someone who refused to go along with it
probably would not have been visible to the selection
committee--uncompromising ethical standards make it much harder to get
and keep a position of responsibility and expertise in most
organizations; the exceptions exist but less commonly than I'd wish,
and I hope we're among them. But this is probably a systematic failure
in recruiting for us.)

The reason this bothers me so much--enough to break my list
silence--is that I think integrity is the most important and most
difficult thing for a board member of this organization. One of the
key things that distinguishes Wikimedia from other entities is that it
does not take the easy path: it does not sell the privacy of users, it
does not make restricted content deals, it does not believe influence
over content or governance should be able to be bought. If these
decisions were easy and came without tradeoffs or pressures everyone
would make them, but they don't; we see all over that Wikimedia is an
outlier, not the norm, while others make decisions that look good in
the short term but are damaging in the long term. Organizations with
tremendous reach and influence--such as Google and Wikipedia--have a
great responsibility not to take actions that systematically harm the
people that rely on them. To know that someone at such an organization
participated in something unethical in this way does not give me great
confidence in them for leadership in Wikimedia.

I don't envy the current board the problems they are faced with, and
recognize the difficulty in recruiting for it given the level of
commitment involved--and I don't doubt that the new appointee has much
to recommend him. But despite the wealth of experience he would bring,
if the situation is as it seems to be, I cannot be supportive of this
choice.

-Kat

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to
> the point of a long silence.
>
> If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least.
> Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to
> participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing
> Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the
> illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from
> an HR professional that I would accept for this.
>
> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>
> Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of
> expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing
> how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in
> this illegal scheme at Google.
>
> Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal
> of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with
> what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I
> am considering strategic options for the community.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

2015-02-13 Thread Kat Walsh
I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question
(and I'm speaking only for myself, here).

I think only the barest sliver of the organization needs to exist for
the licenses to exist--that is, someone willing to carry on the name
and core mission, even if the org can't itself pay anyone's salary to
work on it full time. Much of the other work CC does is more
resource-intensive, especially if it wants to take on the long-term
issue of policy change, but let's say we're only concerned with the
immediate scope of your question.

For your particular concern to be addressed, someone needs to be
willing to undertake needed maintenance of some canonical version of
the licenses. The vast majority of the time, this means simply keeping
the servers running so that they remain accessible; on rare and what I
hope are increasingly infrequent occasions, it means revision of the
license suite. (I have joked that I will be happy to consult on the
5.0 revision from my retirement home.) The main resource this takes is
time, from people with the necessary knowledge and commitment to do
it. This rare process benefits from an organization that can support
paying for full-time work on it, but does not strictly require it.

So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone
needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization
in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward
have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will
still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is
possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad
idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network
effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an
attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were
recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet
down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood
that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if
I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could
include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example).

tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
as a major concern.

-Kat
waving hello to the CC staff who lurk on this list...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:34 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 Hi.

 On the subject of Creative Commons...

 How stable is the Creative Commons organization lately?

 How tied together are Creative Commons the non-profit organization and
 Creative Commons the licenses?

 Or perhaps more bluntly: if Creative Commons the organization collapses,
 what's the likely short-term and long-term impact to Wikimedia wikis?

 MZMcBride



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

2015-02-12 Thread Kat Walsh
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
 According to the footer at:
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
 CC-BY-SA 4.0 is currently available in 34 languages/language variants: [...]

This is just the deeds, not the license text itself.

-Kat


 Thanks,
 Mike

 On 12 Feb 2015, at 20:26, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
 it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
 traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
 Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)

 [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
 *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
 be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
 and a movement-wide discussion.]

 Luis

 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com 
 mailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
 amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
 to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
 with new content where possible.

 I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
 deconflict licenses.

 Thanks,
 Pine
 On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi, Rupert-

 I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
 roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
 different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
 Foundation
 content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
 across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
 the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759

 .)

 WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
 issued
 a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
 understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
 weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].

 Realistically,
 given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
 discussion will happen early in 2015.

 Hope that helps-
 Luis

 [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
 want it to get worse. :)
 [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
 not be up-to-date/accurate.

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com

 wrote:

 Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
 newest
 commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?

 Rupert
 On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Practical question:
 The template:
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
 contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
 }}
 instead)

 Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
 (including all translations)

 Romaine

 2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:

 Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.

 Greetings
 Ting

 Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:

 Hi folks,

 I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
 on
 Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:

 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/

 I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
 by
 Wikimedia}}
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
 [1]
 templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
 [2]
 and
 {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
 org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
 templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
 Community
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
 [5]
 logos, which were originally released under free licenses.

 There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that
 may
 need
 to
 be updated based on the re-licensed logos.

 Thanks,

 Yana

 [1]
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia

 [2]
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark

 [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0

 [4] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

2015-02-12 Thread Kat Walsh
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 CC 4 is still only in two (three?) languages (Kat may want to weigh in?) so
 it is premature for us to move, I think. But I'm optimistic we'll see
 traction in that area soon, and then we can have a movement discussion.
 Sorry that we can't force that to happen faster :)

There are only two official translations of the 4.0 suite currently
(Norwegian and Finnish), with another ready to publish fairly soon,
maybe 10 or so others in progress. (I note that I'm not there anymore,
though, and can't speak to how things will go forward.)

-Kat

 [To be clear, as I've said on Commons, CC 4.0 is clearly already
 *acceptable* for imported images - obviously free, etc. We just shouldn't
 be encouraging it as the *default* anywhere until there are more languages
 and a movement-wide discussion.]

 Luis

 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Can we get an update on the transition plan to 4.0? I am seeing increasing
 amounts of content with 4.0 licensing across the the web, and would like us
 to move sooner rather than later to 4.0 in order to maintain continuity
 with new content where possible.

 I am not a licensing expert and I sometimes get headaches trying to
 deconflict licenses.

 Thanks,
 Pine
 On Oct 28, 2014 3:00 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi, Rupert-

 I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at
 roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle
 different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So
 Foundation
 content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default license
 across the projects. (I'm aware that some projects have taken this jump on
 the own, but where I've seen this, I've made similar points - for example
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiriesdiff=prevoldid=622093759
 
 .)

 WMF Legal plans to launch a movement-wide 4.0 discussion when CC has
 issued
 a solid number of translations, ideally in our largest languages. I
 understand the first few translations will be published in the next few
 weeks, and there is a schedule of upcoming translations on CC's wiki
 https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Legal_Tools_Translation#4.0[2].

 Realistically,
 given the holidays, and the lag for large projects, this likely means that
 discussion will happen early in 2015.

 Hope that helps-
 Luis

 [1] I'm well aware we already have a huge problem with this, but I don't
 want it to get worse. :)
 [2] These are updated by the translation teams, not CC itself, so they may
 not be up-to-date/accurate.

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
 
 wrote:

  Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the
 newest
  commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0?
 
  Rupert
  On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  Good point.  That line can now be deleted from the trademark template.
 
  On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
   Practical question:
   The template:
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
   contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia
   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
 }}
   instead)
  
   Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark template?
   (including all translations)
  
   Romaine
  
   2014-10-28 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
  
Really cool, great work. Thank you very much.
   
Greetings
Ting
   
Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder:
   
 Hi folks,
   
I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos
 on
Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:
   
  https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/
   
I would really appreciate your help with replacing the {{Copyright
 by
Wikimedia}}

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
  [1]
templates on the logos with the {{Wikimedia trademark}}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
 [2]
   and
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0[3]
templates. But we don't want to replace templates on the MediaWiki
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MediaWiki.svg[4] and the
Community

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
   [5]
logos, which were originally released under free licenses.
   
There are also some pages on Commons, like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing[6], that
 may
   need
to
be updated based on the re-licensed logos.
   
Thanks,
   
Yana
   
[1]
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyright_by_Wikimedia
   
[2]
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark
   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 10 years of wikimedia-l

2014-04-17 Thread Kat Walsh
This made my day. Thank you, Phoebe.

-Kat

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:13 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello everyone!

 So, to change the subject entirely, I just discovered that this is the 10
 year anniversary of foundation-l/wikimedia-l!

 Foundation-l was founded in April 2004, and was renamed to wikimedia-l two
 years ago:
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/

 Foundation-l was originally an offshoot from wikipedia-l, which is where
 the first discussions about policies and issues on the projects were held.
 It was proposed as a separate list in order to discuss Wikimedia-wide
 issues.

 Over the years, we have had debates on every subject under the sun. We've
 gone through high points, hammering out constructive policies and debates,
 sharing our experiences as encyclopedists and free culture enthusiasts; and
 we've gone through low points, with allegations of bad behavior flying left
 and right and people belaboring points beyond all reason. Sometimes --
 usually, in fact -- it's both at once, in different threads. The list has
 been a place to send ideas, manifestos, and information as well as a place
 to discuss with others who share our passions.

 We've debated the list and its place a lot over the years. We have talked
 about moderation, but rarely done anything with it. We've implemented
 posting limits (still in place: 30 posts/person/month); enforced posting
 limits; forgotten to enforce posting limits; talked about stricter or
 weaker limits. We've split sub-topic lists out; we've merged lists back
 together. We've debated the cost in time and energy of each email, the
 burden that being subscribed to the list means, how impossible to keep up
 it is. We've tried summaries, filters, translations. We've talked about
 languages, and tried many times (unsuccessfully to date) to make the list
 truly multilingual. We've called each other out on bad behavior, and every
 once in a while we've remembered to praise each other too.

 The list has chronicled the growth of the Wikimedia Foundation from the
 days when we celebrated raising $50,000 in the fundraiser and held the
 first board elections to today. And it has chronicled the growth of the
 Wikimedia movement, across languages and communities, and of the projects,
 as they changed from rather odd novelties to a core part of the internet.

 People on the list have come and gone. Sometimes, for months or years at a
 time, someone will post on nearly every thread and every subject. Usually
 they eventually taper off, and then someone new will take their place,
 making the rest of the subscribers wonder how do they have so much time?!
 For those who have been subscribed for a long time, these names are
 recognizable because of their many posts and their (in)famous dedication to
 the list. (Wouldn't it be fun if we could get those folks all together in
 person, for a Wikimania panel or something?) Many subscribers never post;
 others are able to find a balance. It is a truism that those who rarely
 post often send the most thoughtful mails.

 People have used the list to join the movement, to get to know others.
 They've also used the list to quit the movement, sometimes loudly and
 angrily, sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes silently; it is always sad when
 this happens. Sometimes, people have used the list to return (welcome back!)

 The list can be endlessly irritating. It's a source of conversation: wow,
 the list is blowing up right now, can you believe it?! It also can be a
 source of connection with other people who we may only know through their
 emails, and a source of joy and inventive new ideas. It is disconnected
 from the on-wiki communities, but is connected too. It serves as a place to
 share with people across our movement, when there are few general channels
 to do so. It is thousands of mails in thousands of in-boxes, over many
 years.

 The list is ours, our commons, ours to take care of and to try to make
 better. Happy anniversary, Wikimedia-l.

 -- phoebe

 --
 * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at
 gmail.com *
 ___
 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



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org

___
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] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

2014-04-15 Thread Kat Walsh
In general, I do think Wikimedia should do this.

Briefly:

Wikimedia is in an extremely fortunate position: it can raise all the
money it needs from many small donors, and can expect to be able to do
so continually into the future. This is partially because it is a
great thing that many people value, of course, but it's partially by
accident because of the type of thing it is--a public resource that
most potential donors visit directly on its website, probably even
every day.

Part of that fortunate position is because of the work of other
organizations which have much less visibility--infrastructural
software, which silently and invisibly makes Wikimedia's work possible
and means we don't have to spend the resources we do take in
reinventing the wheel because they have already done it. The tools
that make it possible for us to create, edit, and display multimedia
content freely--whose users often download once and then have no other
contact with the organization's site or materials. The organizations
who are working with us to advance our common goals, but who do so
less visibly.

Almost none of these have the same ability to raise money as Wikimedia
does, even if they were doing so as effectively as possible, and this
is especially true if they also wish to minimize their dependence on
corporations and foundations with differing goals. But Wikimedia's
mission depends on their survival also--we are able to do what we do
more effectively because of them, and it seems only right that some of
the value we get from them should go back to supporting them.

-Kat

(Disclaimer: I work for CC now, which has received a donation from
Wikimedia since my leaving the board; however, this is an opinion I've
held for a long time.)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 I'd be interested in hearing broader community opinions about the
 extent to which WMF should sponsor non-profits purely to support work
 that Wikimedia benefits from, even if it's not directed towards a
 specific goal established in a grant agreement.

 This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents
 I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006
 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that
 the Wikimedia movement is indebted to.

 On the software side, we have Ubuntu Linux (itself highly indebted to
 Debian) / Apache / MariaDB / PHP / Varnish / ElasticSearch / memcached
 / Puppet / OpenStack / various libraries and many other dependencies [2],
 infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of
 these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and
 support, some don't.

 One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on
 server-side to client-side open source applications used by our
 community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice
 (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on,
 like OpenStreetMap.

 So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether
 because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with
 evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is
 there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of
 accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)?

 I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget
 and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create
 and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to
 hear opinions.

 MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're
 clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for
 us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and
 there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that
 this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth
 developing more consistent sponsorship criteria.

 Thanks,
 Erik


 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation
 [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 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



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org

___
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] Planned school curriculum by MPAA

2013-09-25 Thread Kat Walsh
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/

[...]


 I suggest we see if WMF commenting, possibly in a blog post or
 similar, would help avert such anti-sharing foolishness


I doubt it would avert it, though pointing it out might at least draw
attention. I agree with the comment that it's a ridiculous idea to
introduce in elementary school (and I would be surprised if it did not
simply die on its own, along with many actual good ideas for curriculum
supplementation that simply can't be packed in to the school day).

Creative Commons now has a blog post up from Jane Park, criticizing the
program and pointing out the alternatives that exist:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39781

(I am reminded of the clever If you don't talk to your children about
copyright, who will?, also available in bumper-sticker format:
http://questioncopyright.com/qco-stk-chld.html )

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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] Announcement *please read*

2013-03-27 Thread Kat Walsh
I'm not sure it could be any easier to write this message, but I'm not sure
it could be any harder either.

It is a great privilege to be able to say, as she is moving on, that this
is not a sign of any trouble or strain between Sue and the board, or any
sign of trouble at Wikimedia. It would be hard to be in a better condition
to have a calm, angst-free transition, which reflects the professionalism,
leadership, and real concern for the organization that Sue has shown all
throughout her time in the position; I was incredibly sorry to hear she
would be moving on from this role even as she goes on to find new ways to
further the values we both believe in.

When we hired Sue, we knew it was for a tremendous task, one that we could
hardly have asked of anyone, especially at the stage in our history while
we were small and struggling. We had no idea how lucky we were to connect
with her, someone who had the unusual mix of skills needed to take us from
where we were as an organization to where we are now, and who had the
passion for our movement and the values it holds to become its best and
strongest advocate. Now we are lucky to have her as a full part of the
transition team, as the one who best knows the specific demands of the
role, and to continue to lead the organization until her successor is in as
strong as possible a position going forward.

As Chair, I recognize that she's been a great leader of the organization,
and that we have a challenging task ahead in finding a successor--but that
she will be leaving us in an excellent position for another outstanding
leader to take up where she left off.

In a personal capacity, I have truly valued being able to work closely for
these past years with someone I consider a mentor and a friend, and with
whom I was able to have a great deal of mutual trust, respect, and candor.
And so even recognizing this as a decision that was bound to come sometime
and makes perfect sense, I am sad to know she will be moving on, and to
have to write this message. Fortunately, this isn't yet goodbye, and given
that she'll be closely tied to our movement in whatever new role she
chooses, even that will only be a see you later.

I look forward to working with her, and with all of you, to search for and
prepare the next amazing person to lead the organization into the future.

-Kat

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hello Wikimedia community members,

 This is not an easy e-mail to write, and it’s been a very hard
 decision to make. But I’m writing to tell you that I’m planning to
 leave my position as the Executive Director of the Wikimedia
 Foundation.

 My departure isn’t imminent -- the Board and I anticipate it’ll take
 at least six months to recruit my successor, and I’ll be fully engaged
 as Executive Director all through the recruitment process and until we
 have a new person in place. We’re expecting that’ll take about six
 months or so, and so this note is not goodbye -- not yet.

 Making the decision to leave hasn’t been easy, but it comes down to two
 things.

 First, the movement and the Wikimedia Foundation are in a strong place
 now. When I joined, the Foundation was tiny and not yet able to
 reliably support the projects. Today it's healthy, thriving, and a
 competent partner to the global network of Wikimedia volunteers. If
 that wasn’t the case, I wouldn’t feel okay to leave. In that sense, my
 leaving is a vote of confidence in our Board and executive team and
 staff --- I know they will ably steer the Foundation through the years
 ahead, and I’m confident the Board will appoint a strong successor to
 me.

 And I feel that although we’re in good shape, with a promising future,
 the same isn’t true for the internet itself. (This is thing number
 two.) Increasingly, I’m finding myself uncomfortable about how the
 internet’s developing, who’s influencing its development, and who is
 not. Last year we at Wikimedia raised an alarm about SOPA/PIPA, and
 now CISPA is back. Wikipedia has experienced censorship at the hands
 of industry groups and governments, and we’re --increasingly, I
 think-- seeing important decisions made by unaccountable
 non-transparent corporate players, a shift from the open web to mobile
 walled gardens, and a shift from the production-based internet to one
 that’s consumption-based. There are many organizations and individuals
 advocating for the public interest online -- what’s good for ordinary
 people -- but other interests are more numerous and powerful than they
 are. I want that to change. And that’s what I want to do next.

 I’ve always aimed to make the biggest contribution I can to the
 general public good. Today, this is pulling me towards a new and
 different role, one very much aligned with Wikimedia values and
 informed by my experiences here, and with the purpose of amplifying
 the voices of people advocating for the free and open internet. I
 don’t know exactly what this will look like 

[Wikimedia-l] Outcome of Wikimedia board discussion on the Chapters Association

2013-02-04 Thread Kat Walsh
Those of you who have been following the discussion of the Chapters
Association may wish to read the statement written by the WMF board at our
recent meeting, which is now posted on the Meta talk page for the
Association; we encourage comments and discussion to take place on the wiki.

Link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association

For the Wikimedia board,
Kat Walsh
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Aaron Swartz is dead

2013-01-12 Thread Kat Walsh
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:04 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 Killed himself.

 http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html


 - d.



Oh, Aaron. I remember meeting him, after reading some of his writing, and
being surprised to find the person behind the mental voice, introverted and
thoughtful and a little awkward, in contrast to the boldness of his blog.

I considered him a friend, though I wish I'd known him better; I remember
talking to him, often in a smaller gathering of nerds after some conference
or event, about copyright, the open web, Wikipedia, social structures, and
usually about some problem or another that existed in the world. And unlike
almost anyone else, a short time later Aaron would have founded an
organization or taken on some big project or pulled some crazy stunt to try
to fix that problem, because that's just what he did. And sometimes he
succeeded.

What a huge loss.

-Kat





 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org,
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites:
mindspillage
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Thanking Matt Halprin

2012-10-27 Thread Kat Walsh
At this point, as his term will finish in December and this is his
last meeting as a member of the board, I would like to thank Matt
Halprin for all of his work with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Over
the past three years, Matt has contributed greatly to our
organization, bringing with him a level of professionalism and
experience which helped us tremendously while he chaired the Board
Governance Committee.

Though this is goodbye from his formal position within the Foundation,
his commitment to our mission and values has made him a great
colleague, and I hope we will continue to see him within the Wikimedia
movement. Thank you, Matt.

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access catastrophic for Elsevier

2012-09-25 Thread Kat Walsh
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 24 September 2012 21:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
  It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of
 how
  to manage such things with volunteers.
 
  Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced
 model
  where the most esteemed publications are run by students.


 Well, perhaps. But their peer review is courtrooms, where the decisions
 are made publicly and are produced by the justice system free of charge to
 the journals.  Otherwise, the articles are written by students with faculty
 advisors reviewing their work.  I don't think anyone wants medical studies
 to be peer reviewed by medical students.

FWIW, I was on a peer-reviewed law journal (there are a few) where
students managed the reviewer-wrangling process, with the occasional
aid and input of an also-unpaid faculty advisor.

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [cc-community] CC 4.0 and the GNU GPL

2012-06-18 Thread Kat Walsh
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 Forwarding this from the CC-licenses list.  The WMF should explore
 what impact, if any, one-way CC-BY-SA to GPL compatibility would have
 on WMF projects.  Is anyone at the WMF talking to CC/FSF about this?

I've been paying attention to the license revision process since it
began, trying to flag any issues I thought were relevant to us--and
now I have just started working at Creative Commons as part of their
legal team. I will definitely be thinking about the impact on WMF
projects and trying to make sure people are aware of anything
important!

Cheers,
Kat


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Christopher Allan Webber cweb...@creativecommons.org
 Date: Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM
 Subject: [cc-community] CC 4.0 and the GNU GPL
 To: cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org


 Hi all... to revive a thread that's been quiet publicly (but not
 privately) for some time:

 Brett Smith br...@fsf.org writes:
 How receptive generally might be the FSF to working on GPL
 compatibility?  (Is the case made for compatibility rationale
 compelling enough?)

 Very receptive.  Some of the toughest questions I deal with in my job
 pertain to license interactions in cases like you describe, where a
 piece of software is under the GPL and associated materials under
 another, often CC BY or CC BY-SA.  Being able to simplify the answers to
 those questions would be very worthwhile.

 There haven't been any updates on this in a while, but I wanted to
 inform that there is work being done to try and move this forward.
 Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation (with the assistance
 of the Software Freedom Law Center as counsel) are working together
 and are doing our best to explore this as a serious possibility.

 As license stewards of CC licenses and the GNU GPL respectively, we wanted
 to make clear that both Creative Commons and the Free Software
 Foundation think this is an important issue and worth persuing.  Both
 of our organiztions agree that license interoperability, especially
 amongst copyleft licenses, is an important goal.

 At the moment, the general plan is to try to explore both CC BY and CC
 BY-SA one-way compatibility with the GNU GPL, aiming for direct
 compatibility of terms (think Apache 2.0 and GNU GPL compatibility) with
 CC BY, and compatibility between CC BY-SA and the GNU GPL via optional
 relicensing (think MPL 2.0 and GNU GPL compatibility).  We are still
 exploring possibilities, however.

 Thanks for your interest, we will try to keep this conversation
 updated as we move along.
  - Chris
 ___
 List info and archives at 
 http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
 Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-02 Thread Kat Walsh
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The goal of
 this global event is to move more ISPs, equipment manufacturers and
 web services to permanent adoption of IPv6.

 We're planning to do limited production testing of IPv6 during the
 Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provided that the number of issues
 we encounter are manageable, we may fully enable IPv6 on IPv6 day, and
 keep it enabled.

Thanks Erik and all who are working on this! It's important work and
I'm glad to see us joining the community of sites and organizations
who are prepared for this necessity.

(Acknowledging the potential issues others have mentioned, I'm also
glad to see it while there are still few users who will be using IPv6,
so the problems that arise will be much smaller than they would be in
the future.)

Cheers,
Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Announcement] James Forrester joins WMF as Technical Product Analyst

2012-05-17 Thread Kat Walsh
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 17 May 2012 18:19, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:

 
  It’s my pleasure to announce that James Forrester is joining our San
  Francisco office as a Technical Product Analyst, supporting the Visual
  Editor team. James started his work as a remote contractor yesterday
  and will be joining us in San Francisco later this year as a staff
  member.


 Congratulations, James!

 I hope this means the Visual Editor will use the correct spellings of words
 like colour, axe, and aluminium, and will offer to make people tea. :-)


 Oh gods no, don't suggest it makes tea! Shades of Douglas Adams will come
 to haunt us.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrimatic_drinks_dispenser#Nutrimatic_Drinks_Dispenser

I should have figured someone would beat me to the Hitchhiker's Guide joke...

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Creative Commons 4.0 draft--please help answer questions about attribution!

2012-05-11 Thread Kat Walsh
As has been posted here before, CC is working on version 4.0 of their
licenses--in case you haven't seen it, the public draft is up in
several different formats at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts

Right now their focus is on attribution, and they are asking several
specific questions about things to change in the new version.
(A few of the open questions: Is there too much flexibility in
reasonable manner? Or not enough? Is there any information people
should be required to provide that they aren't providing? Should you
be able to use a shortcut by just providing a link, and if so, what
should you have to include?)

The questions and space for comment is on the CC wiki here:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking#Questions_about_attribution.2Fmarking_in_4.0

(Ultimately, we hope to be able to use the 4.0 license version as the
default license version for Wikimedia projects--either BY-SA or BY,
depending on which project you are using. Several Wikimedians are
already participating in these discussions, as well as the legal staff
and myself, but your input on things that have and haven't worked well
in 3.0 would really help the process, especially if you have good
examples.)

I will be posting this message around to some of the wikis as well,
but please pass this message around where it is relevant, especially
if you are active on non-English projects!

Cheers,
Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
k...@mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l