If we don't want to develop an internal solution, it would be pretty
simple to set up a private flickr album and email it out to all
attendees for feedback.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
However this is done, it could
Congratulations all :)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Nurunnaby Chowdhury n...@nhasive.comwrote:
Congratulations all good luck..
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Steven Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations to you all, and good luck. I'm sure you will all do
that they would be able to achieve affcom recognition in their partnership
grant funded period of operation so that they could apply for FDC funding
Wikimedia-l mailing list
movement's principles?' and not 'does this project violate the
law in any country in the world?'
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM, rupert THURNER
most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
look up the advantages
university, and it's been
absolutely invaluable - there are things I couldn't possibly write about
without access to paywalled journals.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Proffitt,Merrilee proff...@oclc.org
Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Subject: [GLAM-US] Position
people would be.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
As an apparent Wikimedia insider; I think that if the allegations are
substantiated they need to be addressed. I don't mean to run interference
on that. I mean to try and undercut any
of fi.wikipedia.org are unsatisfactory.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Congratulations Frank -
I had been getting a bit worried about the ED search for the WEF, and
my faith in the organization's future success is significantly
increased by your selection for the position.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Jami Mathewson
position at SLU, which is why most places are going with first US
university rather than first university.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Andrew Lih email@example.com wrote:
This is the only thing approaching a complete list I've seen. Kevin
unethical practices on the
part of WiR's, please let me know, so I can clarify the wording so no
one else encounters the same confusion.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin, I am intrigued by your comments in relation to Belfer
even if we don't currently use them heavily, I think there are a
lot of opportunities there :)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 April 2014 20:50, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing broader
points in them are to be taken seriously.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for only commenting on one aspect, I'm still working out the others
in my head.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here: I think this is, even
while not perfect, a practical
between this and the WMF's program evaluation pages (although I do see an
active point in having both sets of pages.)
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting you chose to link to my unfinished peer review with WMEE,
American Cultures Program
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
commonites who desire to comment can do so here or there.
American Cultures Program
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:15 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them?
On Friday, May 9, 2014
*contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am
typing like a sleepy person.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less
contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki
to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any
process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with
so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:
I didn't think you were using oversight in the MediaWiki jargon sense.
But I do think the concept of oversight -- as distinct from consideration,
were pretty consistently
upheld, at least one commons admin suggested in seriousness that a more
appropriate resolution to the situation would simply be indeffing me from
the project rather than conforming to the WMF Board's resolutions about
media which involves identifiable people.
ignored comments would still be, well, ignored,
rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page.
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this,
and that you
.) The first two things which could be conceived as
insults (I suppose) are first and foremost true, and secondarily I'm sure
that Russavia can deal having it suggested that he might, sometimes, be
kind of snarky.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se
, and that basis alone, it's a firm delete.
(Since I cut/pasted Russavia's comment directly, one of the links to
Youtube he posted may attach to this email, and I don't currently see the
right button to turn that off.)
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote
misinterpret statement, and then refuse to clarify the intent of your
statement on a project you're a sysop on.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Let me know when you have recovered from the concussion you have
incurred, which I
directorship of an organization undergoing such rapid growth and
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Nikolas Becker nikolas.bec...@wikimedia.de
Pavel Richter has been Wikimedia Deutschland’s Executive Director since
2009. Over the course
necessary as a priority, but certainly not the whole plan.
(I can't speak for WMF, but I'd be pretty surprised if they intended their
whole plan to focus on agility.)
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:45 AM, rupert THURNER
Am 28.05.2014 09:31 schrieb
if you had a map before continuing.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
actually being very open about
several respected Wikimedians have said things may be better if you back
off a bit, it would probably good to extend us the trust necessary to give
you a map of the field of landmines you've jumped in to.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
that can be facilitated
by a PEG grant and advance the Wikimedia mission, Please come visit us :)
We approve most grants that we deal with, and work hard with applicants to
get grants in to approvable states if they aren't initially so:
that were made and future events that were generated, I suspect that, yes,
the conference was absolutely worth the money spent on it, although we
won't know that with surety until some of the planted collaborations have
an opportunity to actually be carried out.
, but doubt it was that hugely significant. I'm not sure where
you would get the idea that a high proportion of registered attendees were
WMF or chapter employees, let alone why you would think they handled most
of the conference prep.
-sent from my mobile
On Saturday, June 7, 2014
ever been presented with.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:35 AM, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com
Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the first in
a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative
industry playing by our current rules.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate this, WWB, especially after the grilling I gave you about
proposed edits to the Hedge fund article! The fact that you and your
clients are persistent, willing
improving the quality of our content in areas that are currently lacking.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:22 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As I scanned through the weekend emails
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
On 4 July 2014 01:00, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's a donation if you're getting something (a survey)
How could the Foundation possibly not benefit
James, I think you may have missed the part of my message about and are
willing to work with us to address concerns we may have about their
existing services :)
In any case, given that the IA in general is way more eager to test the
boundaries of copyright law and given that they (through
Congratulations to all involved, this is quite an auspicious start to a
project with a really remarkable amount of promise.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Cornelius Kibelka jckibe...@gmail.com
Looks really nice. Could you send an update, when the files
come first. I wish you the best of luck, and hope our paths cross
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Steven Zhang <cro0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I feel honoured to have known you these last few years. I will sorely miss
> you around here,
Hi all -
Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the
sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public
and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't
legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in
Hi all -
What concerns me as much as anything about James' removal is his final
statement - "I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests
movement and the WMF." James has been active in the movement for a long
time in a variety of roles, and we have no reason to believe
Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf.
I'd been debating whether or not to gather more details about the handling
of this event, or for just trying to make sure that procedures went more
smoothly in case any further trustee was removed, but this calls for a
direct question: were documents
I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest that
such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations and people change over
time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has been
dismissed. Given the unusuality of the situation, in my
Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it
doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like
commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar
with Florida NPO governance. I definitely don't want to pronounce
> > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Philippe -
> > I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest
> > such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations and people change
I hope some of my earlier contributions were, well, contributions, since I
do have fairly extensive training in the governance requirements of
CA-based non-profits - which certainly aren't Florida-based nonprofits, but
definitely share some similarities. One of the things that has
Hi Adam -
Thanks for the email - and the idea. Something like this had been floating
around in the back of my head for some time, but I hadn't acted on it yet.
I'm in the middle of a desert for a few more days, but have bookmarked this
to help contribute to when I return. (Unfortunately this is
recedented decision like the removal of Doc James - and that
removal opposed by 2 of the 3 commuity elected trustees - I really really
hope that there's something not yet missing that makes things make sense.
On Tue, De
I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to
the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared
for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate
immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.
less to settle it than to make it go
away" territory - even for the companies involved, as large as they are.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I understand your position
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if
there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have
trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board. The
board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one
his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he
> expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
> -Robert Rohde
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com
> > As far as I can t
I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class
action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the
values of the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemie
Hi all -
I have to start this email with a pair of disclaimers: I'm both not a
lawyer, and I've never been on the board of an organization headquartered
in Florida. However, I have been on multiple California-based boards - none
that had nearly the revenue of WMF, but some whose assets did run in
I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a resolution
explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the board
is written and passed. If there are legal reasons that mean that his
departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be noted -
I really really hope that the full and transparent text of the resolution
is published as soon as is reasonably possible. James has the trust of a
colossal number of movement members, and seeing him suddenly removed short
of allegations of financial malfeasance or something to that effect is
@NYB: at least one major pension fund has ongoing litigation related to the
nonsolicit, so I agree with you Arnnon is unlikely to be able to comment
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input
former employers to not
insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation. His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
the Wikimedia Foundation.
And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
, so the
relevant provision doesn't apply, and he's eligible to run again as soon as
there are faux-elections again.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am willing to return to my seat on the board and continue to push for
to and have questions about the scope of your obligations
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:57 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Following the recent statements by JW on his talk page I am planning to
> publish my email to the board from Oct 7, 2015.
at a time when cultural
matchup between the Board and everyone else is in greater doubt than at any
other time in the history of Wikimedia.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comm
do start to diverge
further, that's going to put WMF in a tough situation. I know one of the
risks in the strat document this year is decreased revenue from
fundraising... part of me is seriously starting to wonder if that's a risk
pretty much created by WMF's recent behavor.
subjects you're interested in... it's just really hard to see you
successful in a fiduciary role, and my doubts here are magnified by other
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Ben Creasy <b...@bencreasy.com> wrote:
> Arnnon Geshuri <ageshuri
that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Jimmy,
> Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that
> lead to a better understanding a
tead of a shining light, a black sheet is being draped over WMF's doings.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Kevin Smith <ksm...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I think some people aren't realizing the difference between the leaked
> presentation (which outlined a gener
ncy that we have get
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
> Craig, I believe it is all free (not purchased), per
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/nonprofits/products/#apps#tab5 ("Google
James in the first place.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say
> different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the
it this second if he decided to, but values privacy enough that
instead of doing so he's asking Jimmy to follow through with his promise of
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at
*Unfortunately, I'm going to have to second this pretty loudly.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:48 PM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of
> people on all side
knowledge organization in the world is engaging in more vicious personal
attacks than the boards I've seen that consisted of college students, and,
equally, have been operating with less transparency.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sher
nor amount of money, how can we
justify NOT doing so?
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:18 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 May 2016 at 15:35, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One very serious element of this decision-making really shoul
ial threat to WMF's survival.
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:47 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Denny I never stated that I "was informed at a later point that [my] duty
> as a trustee is towards the WMF". I have at all times understood that I
Mail list logo