Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

Since we are not funded by the government and we have no relation what so ever with the US government I don't see what VPAT has any relevance to us. If the US government think MediaWiki doesn't fulfill the condition, they had to use another wiki engine I am afraid. Greetings Ting On 16.02.2011

Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

On 02/17/11 10:49 AM, whothis wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote: >> Actually, we already do this. I make a point of visiting AN, AN/I, RfA, >> Village pump, and at least glance at the conversations on 11 mailing >> lists several times throughout my day (or tea

Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

On 02/16/11 10:35 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > Yeah, I realize (after the painkillers have worn off) that I actually meant > to say "hostility and suspicion" more than I meant to say criticism. > Criticism should always be welcome. I'm talking about the unfounded stuff. > > I agree with your conclu

Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

On 02/16/11 10:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > If criticism is unduly harsh in your opinion, you should say so to the > people doing the criticizing as it happens (privately or publicly). Nobody's > perfect; sometimes people are too harsh. And sometimes text is just mis-read > or mis-phrased. That's the

Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

On 02/16/11 9:14 PM, James Alexander wrote: > So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, > regardless > of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out > the window. This thread is about when it happens to staff but the same exact > thing happens

Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

On 02/17/11 10:16 AM, Christine Moellenberndt wrote: > On 2/17/11 8:29 AM, whothis wrote: >> If someone asks a question in a >> conference publicly, you can't take them aside and answer individually and >> expect that to satisfy the rest of the audience. > Actually, I'd like to beg to differ here.

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On 18 February 2011 23:24, aude wrote: > Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and researcher/writer > in South Africa has written an essay, "The Missing Wikipedians" about > systematic bias on English Wikipedia (especially) against new users and > topics pertinent to Africa and o

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

A license is not a finite resource. It's not something that "runs out" in quantity or duration. So usual arguments for multiplicity fail. Free licenses aren't needed to back up each other in case one "fails" or ceases to exist, or in case one starts to charge more. Multiple licenses add benefit wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

Le 19/02/2011 10:14, David Gerard a écrit : > On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo wrote: >> 2011/2/19 David Gerard : > >>> Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making >>> blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's >>> understanding of them. > >> In my vie

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo wrote: > 2011/2/19 David Gerard : >> Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making >> blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's >> understanding of them. > In my view, the existence of "Canada French", "Canada English" e

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/19 David Gerard : > On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo wrote: > >> Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability. > > > This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear. > > And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses > anyway.

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/19 David Gerard : > On 19 February 2011 11:58, Teofilo wrote: >> 2011/2/19 David Gerard : >>> On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo wrote: > Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a e-mail from me. > >>> CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in a

[Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee

Hoi, In Berlin, in parallel to the MediaWiki hackathon, members of the language committeeof the Wikimedia Foundation will meet for a first time in real life. As I read the roster of the peo

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 11:58, Teofilo wrote: > 2011/2/19 David Gerard : >> On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo wrote: >>> Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a >>> e-mail from me. >> CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever. > CC 2.0 does

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/19 David Gerard : > On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo wrote: (...) >> They are not even... free per the definition of Free works at >> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 because they don't contain >> any open source requirement ("Availability of source data"). This is >> different fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/19 David Gerard : > On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo wrote: > >> Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a >> e-mail from me. > > > CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever. > CC 2.0 does not. CC 3.0 does. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19/02/2011 11:08, Teofilo wrote: > > I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who > wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds. > What you have here is farmers being free to use whatever seeds they like so long as they give the resulting crop to mega-corp. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 11:08, Teofilo wrote: > I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who > wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds. You are putting words together in patterns but don't appear to understand what the sentences you thus construct are saying. Why

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo wrote: > Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a > e-mail from me. CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever. > The GFDL has set a certain balance of power. This balance of power is > a "spirit". A prom

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/18 David Gerard : > On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo wrote: > >> Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific >> licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other >> licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a >> variety of c

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/18 Huib Laurens : > I'm starting to think you just don't like changes... every change that is > done will result in a email from you Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a e-mail from me. Everything that affects the balance of power between the content provid

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo wrote: > Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability. This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear. And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses anyway. Paralysis of choice is actually bad in

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/18 David Gerard : > On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo wrote: > >> Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific >> licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other >> licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a >> variety of c

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo wrote: > A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license. > This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions > bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing > regression from the better 2.0 version. >

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

I forgot to tell two important pluralistic principles that are endangered by the upload wizard project : A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license. This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a d