On 18 February 2012 14:48, CherianTinu Abraham wrote:
> Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid
> direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ?
> I thought we were to discuss " Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 ". Just a
> gentle reminder ! :P
I'
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:18:20 +0530, CherianTinu Abraham
wrote:
> Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a
stupid
> direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ?
> I thought we were to discuss " Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 ". Just a
> gentle reminder
Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid
direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ?
I thought we were to discuss " Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 ". Just a
gentle reminder ! :P
Regards
Tinu Cherian
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Yaroslav M
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:07:15 +0100, Milos Rancic
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't comment Jan-Bart's wish, but I have comparable position
> toward usage of particular words: If email in my inbox begins with
> "Dear Milos" (especially in Serbian) by a person not so close to me, I
> would treat it as over-for
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
> Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of
> that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom;
> continuing to ignore his wishes is simply a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 17:52, 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 misspelling,
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
> From: berial...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:52:24 -0200
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians,
> Arabs, Japanese and Indians
gt; > Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:14:55 -0500
> > From: nawr...@gmail.com
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima
> wrote:
> >
> > > Go
: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
>
> 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,
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.
m: B?ria Lima
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> caa2xhjag+ummrkskhe82hatxkocycxm_tsmkb6nmn36mkdj...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; c
Click in the tab "History". You can see I already asked the question I've
been questioning you and Jan there. If you can't do find a diff
alone, I can help:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models&diff=3441324&oldid=3441316
_
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo
nsion thrown back in the
opposite direction.
Cheers,
Craig
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:07:23 -0200
> From: B?ria Lima
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/p
On 15 feb. 2012, at 19:07, Béria Lima wrote:
> Jan
>
> Provide me a link to work
> and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea
> sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion
> and being condescending like you.
>
Actually that was not condescending (if anyth
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha?
>
Awaiting your and others' thoughts on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions
Cheers
Bishakha
___
Jan
Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea
sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion
and being condescending like you.
Here we can't solve anything.
_
*Béria Lima
**Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibi
On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote:
> Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will
> not put my faith in another
> "great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded" Committe.
Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will
not put my faith in another
"great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded" Committe.
When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how
it will going to work and most important:
this would be called: too much drama
There is no life and death situation for "the chapters here". See my earlier
mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization...
Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick
death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: "
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha?
You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose
the way we are going to die?
_
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo
Just to provide some background to my previous mail and left clear that
there is not offensive intention.
In Spanish the cemetery is a well known metaphor for the difficulties of
reforming universities and educational systems. For example in Uruguay:
http://www.ort.edu.uy/home/rectorado/pdf/voce
You have not understood the difference between a discussion in Meta
and the transformation of this discussion in an "operational"
implementation in the organization.
This proposal has a lot of "bugs", it seems like a discussion made in
front of the coffee machine.
Formally your point of view is a
edia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:49 +0100
> From: Jan-Bart de Vreede
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID: <268bd4b0-7e6f-43fe-bcc6-03b486
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede :
> > It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
> fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of
> "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
>
> Indeed, and it may not b
> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
>>
>> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
>> Wikimedia marks ?
>> Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
As Andre says, Affiliates need permission to use the WMF marks on
their own sites / banners, or
Hi, everyone!
Alec, I share your enthusiasm about wikimedia revolution, and I also have
been nagging my chapter with the idea of the shared wikivalues. I ask
everyone to take this in mind as a lighthouse in the gales. Governance is
not an easy way, and for sure we're going to make some big mistake
I agree with the idea to ask Chapters, but since the Board is pushing this
to be read at 10 March. I have no freaking Idea why that date is so
Important - I know you people don't wanna mess with my birthday the day
before ;) - but we all can wait a bit more to do things rights, rather than
do it in
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede :
> It is clear to me that there is a close link between the
> fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of
> "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we
Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came
out more or less
Hi Ziko and Lodewijk,
Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved in
these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came out of
the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve these
recommendations.
It is clear to me that the
That's exactly what I did.
Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk :
> agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its
> impact rather than its source.
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: htt
Hi Ziko,
if you're saying that the proposals should not get 'extra points' because
they happen to come from a working group that did not function optimally
(far from that - although it was definitely not useless either) I totally
agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider i
Lodewijk,
I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it
extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them
- think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It
must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged
"roughness". And in
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a
first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow
that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in
the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution
> From: Florence Devouard
>
> > Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible.
> > First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries,
> later
> > they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter
> for
> > Andorra, later they propose
I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given
serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations
with "Wikimedia values" need to band together into some larger
umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will
allow us to return to a more 'innova
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group
that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I
remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague
Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the
International Olymp
On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
From: Florence Devouard
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both
> From: Lodewijk
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hiya all,
>
> It would be great if we can have this
> From: Florence Devouard
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
> > Why wo
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do,
> please help)
>
> * we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not
> mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos wrote:
> There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters
> and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San
> Francisco...
This is effectively how fundraising now works.
- d.
__
On 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard wrote:
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set
of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with
the chapters). These organizations have develop
> Message du 13/02/12 15:59
> De : "Lodewijk"
> I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement
> relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF:
> 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day
> 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cann
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:58, Lodewijk wrote:
> It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic
> remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that
> we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we
> have talked about how
ancisco...
>
> Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor)
> Secretario de Wikimedia España
> mar...@wikimedia.org.es
> tal_t...@yahoo.es
> (34) 658 395 060
> www.wikimedia.org.es
>
> --- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan escribió:
>
>
> De: Nathan
> Asunto: Re: [Found
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard wrote:
> I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set
> of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with
> the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship
> with a
www.wikimedia.org.es
--- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan escribió:
De: Nathan
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Fecha: lunes, 13 de febrero, 2012 15:03
>
> I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process
> w
>
> 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
On 2/13/12 12:51 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouardwrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
forward that
* partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
* whilst chapters could finally push forward
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of
proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've
currently had on this topic.
I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking
about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and Par
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard >wrote:
>
> >
> > One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
> > forward that
> > * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
> > * whilst c
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
> One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push
> forward that
> * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
> * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter
> has to
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour
wrote:
>
> I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to
> downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission
> aligned with Wikimedia's".
>
> I see new 'models' as a positive proposal to encourag
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
Wikimedia marks ?
Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten
to downgrade) chapters that would b
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour
wrote:
> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia
> marks ?
Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of
Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks
here, but I think that
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
Wikimedia marks ?
Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten
to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and
miss
The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing
rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the
size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the
movement roles gro
58 matches
Mail list logo
