On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
> language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
> policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
> the flow of ne
On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> repercussions in the professiona
>
> In the ptwiki case, members of the group eliminate the page themselves.
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi,
Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its qualifications.
I am
An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> Hoi,
> Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
> discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
If it's boring there is no reason to keep it secret. So no argument for
your position.
> Whe
On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck wrote:
> What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
> your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
> lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
> object to wrong or bad decisions,
Hoi,
It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely bad
form.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 August 2010 15:50, Marcus Buck wrote:
> An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> > Hoi,
> > O
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
> because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely
> bad
> form.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
I think this has already been answered. Qu
Hello all,
I'm pleased to announce the launch of the Wikimedia Foundation
research committee, with 11 initial members. You can find more
information and bios here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee
The purpose of the committee is to help organize policies, practices
and prioritie
Hoi,
That is an argument I do not agree with.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 August 2010 19:59, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
>
On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
>> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
>> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
>> transparent and stand to their word
Gerard, would you be so kind and post a message on your mailing list
informing your co-members about this discussion and inviting them to
join in with their opinions? Would be especially nice to hear from Karen!
Is that okay?
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
__
Hoi,
Blatant: without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious (Wordnet). I
do not need an excuse, I did better; I provided an explanation. An
explanation that you care not to accept. I have also pointed out that I am
unwilling to drop people who have helped out for opportunistic reasons.
It
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
> is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.
Hello David,
There are some cases where confiden
Hi Jesse,
> There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
> ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
> before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
> discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
> speakin
-Original Message-
From: Jesse (Pathoschild)
Date: 2010. augusztus 26. 21:29
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a
An'n 26.08.2010 21:29, hett Jesse (Pathoschild) schreven:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
>> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
>> is a requirement, it can be explained, as G
I've just been chatting with Gerard about this issue. He explained in
some detail the concerns for confidentiality - the situation is far
from ideal, but is the present workable solution to getting accurate
quality information without possible retribution drected at those
giving the information fro
Hoi,
Let us have a sense of history here. When the language committee started,
there were no linguists or other experts members on the committee. We were
really happy when we got someone who is part of the standard bodies that are
relevant to what we do. It meant that we had a way to assess what th
I finally understand. User:Karen (I am assuming, based on other ppl's
remarks) opinions might affect her employment, and in an effort to conceal
her opinions, Gerard is keeping his contribution confidential. Thus
rendering it very hard for anyone to follow the threads and deduce what she
may have s
On 26 August 2010 22:48, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic
> employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee.
> And even if there is a great need for this person's expertise, other
> arrangements could
> A tricky bit appears to be when expertise is offered on the basis that
> it is confidential, due to fear of attacks on the expert in question
> from aggrieved nationalists. It's not clear how to work around that
> one.
>
>
>
But is that the case with committee members? I totally understand and ag
An'n 26.08.2010 23:21, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> Hoi,
> Let us have a sense of history here. When the language committee started,
> there were no linguists or other experts members on the committee. We were
> really happy when we got someone who is part of the standard bodies that are
> re
An'n 27.08.2010 00:00, hett David Gerard schreven:
> On 26 August 2010 22:48, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
>
>> I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic
>> employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee.
>> And even if there is a great ne
There's a new MacArthur Foundation/MIT Press book out called "Peer
Participation and Software: What Mozilla Has to Teach Government" that
I think many people here might find relevant & interesting. It
describes Mozilla's processes, heavily focusing on the roles of
volunteer developers and evangelis
As follow-up, we’ve formed the 2010-2011 Audit Committee. Thanks to Matt
Bisanz, Ad Huikeshoven, Renata Stasaityte, and Michael Snow who have agreed
to join me for another year on the Committee. More details and backgrounds
at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_committee.
-stu
On Fri, Jul
Thanks to all Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia contributors...
I hope the Persian Wikinews will start soon...
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Take a look at some of the new football-related articles on the Ewe
> Wikipedia. I don't think this is cause for celebration at all:
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
