On 28 September 2012 12:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 01:04, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On the contrary, I really do get it: you don't think it matters what gets
cancelled; and I disagree. You don't think we can deliver the planned
programme; and
I think it would be a mistake to start this on the UK Wiki. We have been
more focussed on GLAM than some parts of the world, but this is an issue
that people from across the movement are interested in. So if we start an
RFC it belongs on meta, rather than with one chapter or language. I'm
tempted
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you were arguing for the chapter to take
on coordination of something in which
Actually, this is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make. The
way to reduce workload is to do fewer things, not to do thing less well.
On Sep 28, 2012 6:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 5:27 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 27 September 2012 22:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying you should be doing less.
And yet a couple of days ago, you
WEOn 28 September 2012 18:46, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should
therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having
individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional
and
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should
therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having
individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional
and
Dear all,
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog
regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's
fundraiser.
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog
regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's
Yes, David, sounds like it.
The opening to this week's signpost article seems to sum it up the
situation:
In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months...
Both controversies seemed to have damaged the relationship between the
chapter and the editing communities, in particular
On 28 September 2012 18:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Training is something the chapter is already involved in and should
therefore ensure is done well, since it reflects on the chapter. Having
individuals contacting potential trainees directly appears unprofessional
and
Well, there goes my donation.
On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the
I'll say again, the issue here is the plan in aggregate. Specific examples
aren't really important - there is plenty of room for reasonable people to
come to different conclusions on a specific budget item. What we should be
able to agree on though, is that this plan, when considered as a whole,
I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I
wondered what the status is with
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012_Five_Year_Plan? On the page ist says This
version will be discussed at a special board meeting to be held during
Wikimania in Washington - did that happen?
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
I disagree that it is in fairly good shape and would welcome an opportunity
for further discussion. A bad long-term plan can be worse than no plan.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:01 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I appreciate that recent events have overtaken things to an extent but I
Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
Alice.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:05 PM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
Depends on
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF
even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where
the default landing
Training led and run by volunteers has very little to do with the
objections to the plan, which is about allocation of Chapter resources,
focus, and staff time. I don't see why we're running these two objections
together.
- Andrew.
On Friday, 28 September 2012, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I'll say
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can
There were plenty of large countries on that list, although media attention
is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's true.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On
I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so about
the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I saw as an
unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. I'm very
disappointed to see the latest press release I believe that the statement
23 matches
Mail list logo
