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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
>
> 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
17 matches
Mail list logo