Hi! Thanks for that! As a couple of comments to further discussion:
I agree about being more open. I think the whole committee supported that, and still does, but the priorities of getting the fundraiser in place and making sure that we could meet legal and internal requirements of scaling up meant that the initiatives there had to be put aside for a bit. The open wiki is under discussion, but has issues that need to be worked through first. It does have in principal support, I think, once we work through them. :) > 1) Sponsor people / efforts to open up government information sources. This is something I'd really like to see. One suggestion is to be more involved in the various GLAM-related events so as to have a clear presence supporting the use of CC for materials, and we've been developing a list of conferences where we might consider making an appearance. I'd like to make more proactive moves too. We do have something coming up on this score, though, so it will be exciting if it goes as planned and we can talk about it. > 2) Fight restrictive copyright. Something I'd like to do a great deal. In terms of the Foundation projects I don't think we can do much, because of the requirements that content must be CC or PD under US law as well as our own, but there must be some room to move, and it would be a good direction irrespective of the projects. I'm not sure how to tackle it, though - lobbying, perhaps? Or maybe we should chat with some of the Electronic Frontiers guys about directions. > 3) Sponsor cheap / free / guerrilla marketing of WP. Yep. :) > 4) Deliver 'Briefing on WP' material / presentations to schools. Happily, this is in progress - we're looking to develop literature for this sort of role. Any suggestions on what the literature should cover would be much appreciated. :) > 5) Give support grants to PHD candidates who agree to add their > expertise to WP. Limit to one year... Reward actual contributors with > more grants to support their PHD study. This first might encounter concerns with paying for free content, as that may set a precedent which could be problematic. I gather there have been concerns raised elsewhere about what would happen if Chapters started to directly fund content. We might be better off going with the second, and being more indirect. What we could do, possibly, is create a scholarship related to research or development of free content, or create directed grants into wiki-related topics if there are some issues we'd like to see work in. Thanks for this - I've been hoping to see discussion on where we could go with the changing role of the Chapter. I was going to catch up with Adelaide people, if possible, at a Wikimeet on Jan 15, but this chat is probably much better. :) Adam. _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
