On 19 January 2012 17:26, FT2 wrote:
> Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root?
> Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical.
There are many existing alternate roots. I suspect it would break into
national or continental roots wh
Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root?
Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical.
FT2
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google
> will break
On 19 January 2012 17:15, FT2 wrote:
> The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS
> servers? If so, then migration might help.
Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google
will break itself up for the purpose.
- d.
___
The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS
servers? If so, then migration might help.
FT2
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Next time we should just migrate and fork to a jurisdiction
> outside the US control. If that is needed.
>
>
_
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Mono wrote:
>> I do agree that this kind of action must be severely limited. We cannot go
>> on like this; we've used up our shutdown for about five years. The shutdown
>> makes waves, but its effect will dimi
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>> The community en.wp decision is separate, but it was also nuanced, and
>> so I don't think it's true that all these issues were bulldozed,
>> within Wikipedia or the WMF. (I don't know about
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> It sounds like the Foundation was more organized about it than the
> community, and didn't reach out to push early enough. I understand
> the desire not to be seen to be leading the community around, but it
> seems to have led to a counterproduct
I wasn't involved but I can guess one key issue. On this of all things, the
foundation's hands were tied,. it could not pre-empt the community or do
things in a way that would let it be seen as foundation pushing, or
hinting, or anything. And the community well it just yapped and
yapped, as
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Mono wrote:
> I do agree that this kind of action must be severely limited. We cannot go
> on like this; we've used up our shutdown for about five years. The shutdown
> makes waves, but its effect will diminish with overuse. This is the kind of
> thing we should no
I do agree that this kind of action must be severely limited. We cannot go
on like this; we've used up our shutdown for about five years. The shutdown
makes waves, but its effect will diminish with overuse. This is the kind of
thing we should not repeat for a long while.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
>>> It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
>>> January before any close.
>>
>> No, there was informal dis
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
>> January before any close.
>
> No, there was informal discussion going back into December. "The
> discussion" - the con
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
> It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
> January before any close.
No, there was informal discussion going back into December. "The
discussion" - the concrete, date-attached specific policy and
implementation proposals
It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
January before any close. (Note: 15 December is not when it actually
started, it's when it was formally opened as a community discussion -
earlier suggestions were also discussed less formally from 10 December on
various pages).
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> The push came about after the IRC office hours.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12
After ongoing review of the IRC thread, on-wiki threads, mailing lists etc...
I think the key fail
On 18 January 2012 05:04, Chris Lee wrote:
> The "Learn More" link at en.wp is blocked too.
Works fine for me (and I can read about SOPA and PIPA too), but I've
seen a couple of reports of it not working.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
The "Learn More" link at en.wp is blocked too.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi George,
The push came about after the IRC office hours.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
I would normally start by floating this on wikien-L or on-wiki at the
usual places, but the time for that has passed and thus I am going to
drop this on the Foundation, who I believe are responsible for the
particular problem here.
On the English language Wikipedia, there has been a longstanding
d
19 matches
Mail list logo
