On 18 January 2014 13:41, Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> The RFC is non-neutral and unnecessarily complex. With so much >> experience of trying these things, along with full time expertise, I >> would hope for a more sophisticated approach from in-house WMF teams. > > > It is actually very complex -- legally and technically. And the MPEG-LA > licensors did not gear their licenses or documentation towards > user-generated content, or free culture projects, which makes our job > harder.
Yes, of course. However the end RFC put to the community need not be complex. Most of the community will not care about legal or technical detail, they just want the conclusion. You may wish to consider whether the technical and legal aspects might be better explored as essays and included as background in future proposals, not the meat of the proposal itself. Personally, were I leading this team, I would make it a requirement that the proposal is limited to 50 words. Punchy, factual, neutral. For example, a simple yes/no RFC on adding an ingestion process for MP4 video upload might now be successful. The legal aspect can be as simple as "WMF legal has determine this poses no risk to the WMF, uploaders or reusers, refer to <essay>" and the technical aspect could be "See <essay> for an explanation of optimized transcoding, workflow processes and test examples". There's nothing new in keeping it simple. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
