Thank you Nat,
Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.
Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think
Hi Zack,
I filled out a survey request for "The Wiki Foundation".
Some of the text of the survey indicated that the legal department thought
that there could be a problem with that possibility, but didn't say why, so
I asked for the source for the claim I quoted in the survey.
How many
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
>
Agreed.
Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us
working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago,
it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate
for public education and open knowledge.
These personal comments are misleading
e to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name,
> don't
> > change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is
> also a
> > position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
> >
> >
> > R
ect, unfortunately they did not
> identify a cure.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wiki
-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do
update on Branding: next steps
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> D
It's not rocket science, ask an advertising/PR consulting company what they
think about renaming, they are going to go with the easiest option that's
the best known identity. It's a no brainer exercise of take the money and
run.
There is more to this community/movement than its choice of name,
Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> you make that plain in what you say.
>
This sort of assumption-making about other
onger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Bra
rademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv
> > To: Wikimedia M
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm
ted parties.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Nataliia Tymkiv
> Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next
:11 +0300
> From: Nataliia Tymkiv
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> Message-ID:
> <
> cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="
brought up
so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Nataliia Tymkiv
Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update
Dear all,
We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.
We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey,
"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to
change the survey now"
This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is
not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and
WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they
Greetings,
The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
The early July
Dear all,
I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.
Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on
21 matches
Mail list logo
