of the "wiki way" is not helpfully transferable to managing large
amounts of money, I think that under the circumstances the Board has taken
the best possible steps with these three resolutions.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>
> And the creator of Wikipedia:Short_popular_vital_articles has retired
> after 16 days..due to harassment/accusations of sock puppetry/etc
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Npmay&diff=482503236&oldid=482441874
One problem with the assertion that "manual welcomes are better than
automated welcomes" is that it fails to parse the elements of a welcome
message. A personal message is obviously more meaningful as a method of
welcoming per se than an automated one; but all welcome messages contain
more than jus
Let's separate the two elements of a "welcome message" - one is an actual
welcome, a personal exchange that should be provided by a human being. The
other is the provision of useful information, links to policies and
guidelines and the sort of "how-to" information that anyone should have
easy acces
27;s annual fundraiser. You've already tied
yourself to the WMF by allowing it to decide which organizations are and
are not eligible to join your association. To retain meaningful
independence and to avoid diverting donor funds from their intended use,
the association should rely on independently raised funds from
participating chapters.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
make it clear that
grant money from the WMF or funds otherwise diverted from the WMF to
chapters should not be used to fund the ChapAss. If this organization is to
exist, it should be funded purely by its own fundraising and the distinct
and separate fundraising activities of its member chapters.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So a group of chapters, reacting against a perceived effort to centralize
the movement, create a brand new central body with an extensive (and
apparently, expensive) bureaucracy? Are there really a lot of people that
think this is a good idea?
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> > 2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
> > replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
> >
> >
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion
> is
> > just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ign
The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
> single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
> can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
> English Wikipedi
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> It would also be interesting to understand why everyone (for
> reimbursements, grants, scholarships etc.) is required to send and receive
> money to/from the USA bank or PayPal accounts although there is an EU bank
> account and bank t
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with
> you,
> > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire
> community?
>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Nathan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Whew. We as a community figured that it would be
ust one way in which it
enforces its view of knowledge; acceding to or refusing to filter content
in any way is also enforcing a particular view of both knowledge and the
world. It would do both sides well to approach this argument with a little
less arrogance and self-righteousness.
Nathan
___
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
>
>
> Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
> the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
> proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.
>
"We as a community" don't
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> > Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
> > personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
> > speculation about my own personal views or motivations
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need
an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
I appreciate that Erik unsubscribed from internal-l. I think more people
should do the same thing, on the principle that discussions about the
Wikimedia F
It looks like it's just a promotion for Wikinews. It doesn't refer to or
link anywhere else. It's not totally accurate, from what I understand of
Wikinews, but I'm not sure how it's a threat?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
>
> I agree with you, Yaroslav, that repeated and indiscriminate use of the
> method would dilute its impact; and could come back to bite the Project.
> But
> I think it unwise and unfair to put a flatly negative spin on the idea.
>
> Marc
>
>
I
If folks commenting here would like a voice on the policy itself, feel free
to comment on the RfC linked in the original post. It could still use more
input.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
> one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
> deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
> than rely on an omission or incompat
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27:
>
> In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a
>> country
>> where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor
>> treatment - w
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
> > The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin"
> > (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be
> > declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to
> > be freely used. T
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38:
>
> Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
>> question for me - do I want to participate in the political
>> disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) auth
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple
question for me - do I want to participate in the political
disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They
have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no
control over whether thei
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
> No I will not apologize for act according with my culture.
>
> If Mister de Vreede has a problem with people from different cultures he
> shouldn't be part of a international movement.
>
> (And besides if someone would complain about misspelli
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained.
>
> Everyone in Brazil calls me "B" (yah, just the first letter) and here is
> VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast
> than to offend anyone.
>
> I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process
> wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations.
> "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters
> represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different
> numbers of members, v
r the "young" ones.
>
> Regards
> Emmanuel
>
Payment processing is piggybacking on the annual WMF fundraiser; nothing
prevents any chapter from raising funds on its own.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>
> Please read
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES
> section 3D
>
> "Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters
> in even-numbered years according to a p
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
> *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board
> > might refuse to certify the results? *
>
> I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been
> answered by a document, but let's quote again
Not surprisingly, the executive and board positions of the WMF follow U.S.
convention. It's not super typical to mix the "executive director"
nomenclature with president / vice president, but its common to have vice
presidents reporting to a chief executive (who will often take the title of
"Presid
I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too.
It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board
members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with
consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the
discussion to r
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, cyrano wrote:
> Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
> would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_by_country#Rankings
The U.S. is below most of Europe, and
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
> from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> >
> >
> > None of this requires that any nonprofit spend t
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/the-great-wikipedia-blackout-of-2012-media-try-to-fill-the-void/
#altwiki - a place for various news organizations, including NPR and
Washington Post in the U.S., to answer questions for people while
en.wp is down.
_
This is well beyond acceptable discussion, and should draw attention
from the mysterious and rarely seen list moderators.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, emijrp wrote:
> 2012/1/7 geni
>
>> On 7 January 2012 16:53, emijrp wrote:
>> > It is sure that LOC is in the top priorities for Americans, an
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
>
> Would it be an idea to have some kind of RfC or something like that on
> Meta where community members could come up with a list of things we
> roughly agree are the limits for fundraising.
>
> I think the fundraising team have done really well
I'm on the same page as the last three posts to this thread, and
thanks guys for saying it in a reasonable and non-confrontational
manner.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
mean when you say you [[WP:WOTTA]]'d something.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ng has
its benefits, but also fairly significant drawbacks - with the upshot
that we're inconsistent and, to outsiders, confused about what we
want.
~Nathan
[1]Jimmy made some of these points well in a post on his talkpage on
this issue. Hopefully he doesn't mind that I reproduce
that is within their scope is a separate issue
> that should be discussed elsewhere.
>
> I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central
> Notice requests.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
FWIW, the banner was switched on
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan wrote:
>
>> I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
>> McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
>> advertising is commonly r
e you misunderstood my point: that
advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
while even those who object to this banner have not rationally
presented any possible harm that could result.
For what it's worth, Beria Lima (as a meta administrator) switched the
little flame-retardant PR from
Philippe (for example) would do wonders.
~Nathan
Selected quotes:
"Yuck Advertisement :( So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them
in the end. Anthere (talk) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−5)"
"You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was mal
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
What's happening that this is disabled?
~Nathan
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Megan Hernandez
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I just posted an update on the current editor appeal we're running. Take a
> look: htt
jp's e-mail and rupert's reply).
Nathan
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> Hey Nathan,
>
> a bit OT from the thread title, but just clarifying a couple of points:
>
>> * The WMF spends over $2
es more pressing
than the diversity of donors.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let's not? I'm sure there is a lot of backstory to why some posts to
this thread have been so argumentative, but the belligerence is
childish and not conducive to a serious and productive discussion.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
fo
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> Only in the case of a
> formal takedown notice it is the right of WMF to overrule the
> community consensus.
>
For what its worth, this is simply incorrect.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l
retion for local
decision-making. Perhaps the de.wp is unused to any assertiveness on
the part of the WMF, but the infrequency of Office actions there
should not be taken to mean that the WMF has relinquished its formal
responsibilities with respect to that project.
Nathan
_
ecome administrators.
Nathan
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Does anyone feel that the Wikiquette is too weak to enforce the
> respect aspect of the five pillars?
>
> I wonder if we should make RFC/U a lot easier for cases where
> administrators show a pattern
It would be handy to have sites usable as references build-in code for
easy Wikipedia citations, but it seems pretty unlikely that such an
effort will ever recruit enough sites to be really useful. A
greasemonkey script of some sort would be easier and would allow users
basically the same functiona
d a reference in the main body of article-space. I think
those are key improvements that could be made, either to ProveIT or to
a different gadget (or, ideally, an extension).
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 November 2011 21:41, Nathan wrote:
>
>> I knew it
) It's a gadget currently available to everyone.
A gadget is certainly handy and I'll be using ProveIt from now on,
but... it doesn't help people who are not logged in or have never
edited before, it's not widely publicised, etc. etc.
~Nathan
__
To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Nathan wrote:
> A button or link that says "Add a reference?" that brings up a box
> with several lines, labelled "URL" "Source" "Author" "Da
A button or link that says "Add a reference?" that brings up a box
with several lines, labelled "URL" "Source" "Author" "Date". Click
"Ok" and the reference is inserted, no ref syntax or other ugly
interface necessary.
Put it automatically at the end of a paragraph or somewhere else,
maybe even in
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
>> if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
>> implementation, where wa
I see Brandon replied to this thread several times; did anyone notice
if the question in the OP (if community consensus is required for
implementation, where was it demonstrated for en.wp) was answered?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wi
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Hubert wrote:
> One problem is that the word "Love" is used quite differently in the
> German language. Even in Great Britain.
>
> Love as a term is used in English in a fully inflated notion of flooding.
>
> I have no idea what lovers say to each other in the U.S
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 19/10/2011 15:24, Béria Lima wrote:
>> problematic to who?
>
> Well obviously not problematic to someone with the empathic capacity
> that would shame a tree stump.
>
>
> ___
You've been making several c
opics, I would stop and stare at the train wreck. It's an
embarrassing character flaw, but I know I wouldn't be able to avoid
watching the carnage and counting the bodies.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu
urned out or anything like that. But it's worth remembering, for
folks on both sides of this issue, that there are methods of
addressing any truly schismatic decisions on the part of the Board in
the hopefully very unlikely case that any are taken.
Nathan
__
I could probably look this up and find out, but can anyone tell me
when the next Board election will be?
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e contributor to violate the terms
of service agreement, and the indemnity clause applies only to such
violations.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
t properly comply with the license terms. Enforcing
the content licenses (as distinct from trademarks or content
copyrighted by the WMF) is not the remit of the WMF, nor is promoting
mirrors.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@list
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans wrote:
> Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not
> yet in affect.
>
It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not.
~Nathan
___
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockdown a while ago.
> All content and pages direct to the notice.
>
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
>
Any news coverage?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>
>
> The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike
> because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will
> be approved, it's harder to do something.
>
> It means that any action must be done now.
>
> Il
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Donaldo Papero wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> my name is Giovanni (Donaldo stands for Donald [Duck], and is related to my
> nickname ;))
>
> You are right in understanding that this lock is a way to raise a discussion
> about a proposed law, whi
esources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a
protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted
upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an
unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
generated
categories will be a long-term battleground; as we've always seen,
those with the most extreme positions come to dominate the most
contentious areas - requiring the intervention of many others over
extended periods of time to reach incremental compromi
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
> post was about two basic issues:
>
> *How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and
>
> *The role of editorial judgment in selecting
he image filter? What about women in
different regions?" is of some relevance - it's useful to try to
understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue
differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure wh
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
>> Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
>> won't be imposed on the projects against strong maj
nd the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
and roles aside.
Nathan
icularly important decision is a huge and
diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
opposition in favor of the "larger aud
an amply documented history of pro-Turkish editing which should
not be doubted) is in favor. If, as you say, it's a purely logical and
reasonable argument, then the nature of the two sides is an
interesting coincidence. Perhaps the Kurdish ed
r of fact, White Cat has an
extensive history of being subject to dispute resolution, editing
restrictions, blocks etc. for disruptive editing with a Turkish
nationalist point of view. While I do understand that you may
disagree, I personally think that strongly held bia
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:33 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Any proof of this? I don't seem to see anywhere that it says that
> White_Cat's nationality is Turkish. Also, that holds little relevance. I
> agree with him and I am certainly not Turkish.
>
>
You may not find it relevant, which is fine. Ot
he ku.wp editors are
on one side of that debate, and White_Cat (who is Turkish) is traditionally
on the other.
~Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
s is the sum of all these factors, not the direct
and clear result of any lack of investment from the WMF.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
corporate citizen (a fact that is
otherwise just implied by the folksy writing style.)
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
, though. The differences between the project logos don't
indicate anything to the viewer; they are almost random variations of the
shape "W", and no one who hasn't read the logo pitch will understand what is
meant to be conveyed. The puzzle globe logo is widely recognizable, and
I took a look at the talk page for the article you wrote; you didn't note in
your earlier message that your article was actually failed because you
didn't provide the notes that they're looking for, and because they wanted
someone with a familiarity with Japanese to review the Japanese sources. To
because of a
link on [[Sesame street]]! And there were pictures!" - magnified across the
blogosphere and conservative commentariat.
Nathan
* NSFW
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
arly disposed towards new administrative burdens in the
interests of WMF oversight. Hopefully members of the WMF staff and Board are
working behind the scenes to resolve some of the tension.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> > I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
> > agreement/fundraising agreement.
> >
> > Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further
> discussion.
>
>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> > Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
> of
> > the chapter agreemen
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow
> wrote:
> > On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
> >>> Which activities are these?
> &g
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> You're strawman is alive.
>
> If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US
> law.
>
> If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes
> it to chapters via grants, all chapters must com
subscribing I can't think of anyone who doesn't believe the
Foundation is responsible to the Wikimedia community.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 8/29/11 1:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Which other criteria are so onerous
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
> chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
> restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
> is a m
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
>
> > Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
> > like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
>
>
> Because that's its effect: "
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> > More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
> > fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
> > the fundraiser is not, in anyw
o these requirements is hard for me to understand.
I can see why chapters would be perturbed about needing to meet them on a
short timeline, but generally speaking they should all have had these as
aims to begin with.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ce. I haven't seen
outlines for requesting grants from the Foundation... have you seen
documents that suggest the requirements for receiving a grant will be
particularly onerous? Perhaps a chapter will establish a budget,
submit the budget to the WMF, and have the whole budget funded. That's
ation. A receipt is not
> requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD).
>
> Ilario
>
What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think
Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post.
~Nathan
_
1 - 100 of 386 matches
Mail list logo
