Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy

Trillium, while I sympathise with several of the points you're making, the Board has approved the current version of the policy. In light of this, your insinuation that the Executive Director could simply alter the policy to her liking seems somewhat far-fetched. Just because staff have not yet

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need to change in order to bid more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz, On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds. While

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz, thanks for the quick response. On 23 November 2014 at 14:52, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of lack of clarify of proposal,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz, On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down. sure, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On 3 December 2014 at 14:09, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Dear WMF Fundraising team, please do not take this thread (or this email) as an attack on yourselves or the professionalism that you apply to your work. I would suspect that what drives this is indeed the professionalism of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results

On 7 December 2014 at 12:19, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, 8 million returns on Google. Er, Lila, someone, how about making a decision to pause using fundraising banners until this is fixed or at least we understand why it is happening? See Erik's comment somewhere in this kilometre-long

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

Hi, On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup claus.bruent...@gmail.com wrote: WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns, and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm. hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to acknowledging

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

Hi Andreas and others, On 4 February 2015 at 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Just for the avoidance of doubt – when you say these e-mails can take up to an hour to process, I presume you mean that it takes one hour just to read them and understand the complaint. Am I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia OTRS Annual Report

Hi, thank you all for your feedback. Asaf and MZMcBride, I'll try to answer your questions in one email, hope that's fine: Asaf, I am curious in my volunteer capacity about the prominence of the commons-permissions-he queue among other permission queues and relative to the size of the Hebrew

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia OTRS Annual Report

Hi everyone, it is my pleasure to announce the release of the 2014 annual report on Wikimedia's OTRS and specifically the Volunteer Response Team's activities. Please find it at https://tools.wmflabs.org/otrsreports/annual/2014 If you have any questions or comments, please leave them at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Vote for freedom of panorama in France

Dear Berard, thanks for sharing that. I assume you (wisely) borrowed most of the wording of your proposal directly from the Infosoc directive -- at any rate, the two texts seem to match word-for-word, with one noticeable difference: While the Infosoc directive does not require a limitation to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Sarah, thank you and Brion for some really insightful e-mails. I'll just add one thought to one of your points. On 24 February 2016 at 00:41, SarahSV wrote: > Should the Foundation be paying for that kind of work > and thinking in those ways? I would say not. [...] 4.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On 29 February 2016 at 06:18, SarahSV wrote: > Everything Doc James has said so far appears to have been correct, based on > the information we have. > Ha, like those "Oh, I have done nothing wrong and no have no idea why I was removed" messages we heard for two weeks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

On 28 February 2017 at 06:11, James Salsman wrote: > > 17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses > > granted by the author > I don't usually post to this list and hope this isn't too off-topic, but, coincidentally, I've looked into that matter a bit last

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A fundraising banner we'd like to try in a short test

> > This test would run for 1 to 2 hours, and then we'd evaluate results to see > if it's worth spending any more time on the concept. For now, we're simply > hiding the banner all together below 920px, as at smaller viewports it > begins to interfere with site navigation elements. It is truly