2009/8/12 Sue Gardner :
> I definitely sympathize with people wanting to be connected and aware of
> what's going on with the staff. I'd be curious to know what kinds of
> information people find most useful of what we publish today, and what you'd
> like to see more of -- and also what you thin
2009/8/12 Gregory Maxwell :
> I too agree that there is an obligation to contact, hopefully with
> enough time to respond and point out an error, but I don't believe
> that the the contact must be absolutely immediate.
I agree that there is no real need for it to be immediate, but in most
cases I
Congratulations to the victors and thank you to all the candidates and
thank you to the departing Domas!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/8/19 Gregory Kohs :
> I hope that some Foundation staff or board member will comment on what has
> happened here. Wikimedia Foundation server resources were used to
> coordinate a discussion of issues by no less than eight candidates for the
> Board of Trustees.
What WMF server resources wer
2009/8/19 Ray Saintonge :
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> certainly see why it would be frustrating for him: he's much more reasonable
>>> in voice chat than over text, and if the audio were widely circulated it's
>>> possible he would ha
2009/8/20 Robert Rohde :
> I am supposed to be taking a wiki-vacation to finish my PhD thesis and
> find a job for next year. However, this afternoon I decided to take a
> break and consider an interesting question recently suggested to me by
> someone else:
> [snip]
That's an interesting bit of
2009/8/20 Jimmy Wales :
> Robert Rohde wrote:
>> When one downloads a dump file, what percentage of the pages are
>> actually in a vandalized state?
>>
>> This is equivalent to asking, if one chooses a random page from
>> Wikipedia right now, what is the probability of receiving a vandalized
>> rev
2009/8/20 Anthony :
> I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most recent
> revision as of whatever moment in time is chosen. If vandalism is found,
> then and only then would one look through the edit history to find out when
> it was added.
That only works if the article
2009/8/21 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/20 Anthony :
>> > I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most
>> recent
>> > revision as of whatever moment in time is chosen. If vandalism is
2009/8/21 Anthony :
> My God. If a few dozen people couldn't easily determine to a relatively
> high degree of certainty what portion of a mere 0.03% of Wikipedia's
> articles are *vandalized*, how useless is Wikipedia?
I never said they couldn't. I said they couldn't do it by just looking
at the
2009/8/21 Anthony :
> "Is this article vandalized?" is a yes/no question...
True, but that isn't actually the question that this research tried to
answer. It tried to answer "How much time has this article spent in a
vandalised state?". If we are only interested in whether the most
recent revision
2009/8/21 Anthony :
>> If we are only interested in whether the most
>> recent revision is vandalised then that is a simpler problem but would
>> require a much larger sample to get the same quality of data.
>
>
> How much larger? Do you know anything about this, or you're just guessing?
> The nu
2009/8/20 Erik Zachte :
> Too often I see people bragging how they managed to 'one up' another
> Wikipedia in the rankings.
> I think it would help if we discouraged any bragging on the 4th millionth
> article in the English Wikipedia at all and downplayed any inquiries from
> the media.
Milestone
2009/8/21 Erik Moeller :
> The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has decided to generously
> support us with $500,000 in operational funding. More information in
> the press release:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Hewlwett_Fdn_grant_August_2009
>
> This is not a project-b
2009/8/22 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to
>> work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias
>> number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones,
>
2009/8/24 Chad :
> The only user requirement for this is that a shell user has to
> perform the actual decision. The community makes the decisions
> about opening/closing new projects, and the sysadmins carry
> out the actual task.
But what is "the community" (the community of the project being
cl
2009/8/24 Chad :
> I don't know. I don't follow those discussions. I was just clarifying the
> question as to "what user roles play into this?" Right now, that only
> includes the sysadmins.
Implementing the final decision is a job for sysadmins, certainly, but
it shouldn't be the sysadmin the mak
2009/8/25 geni :
> Omidyar Network? They were involved with a 4 million funding round for
> wikia back in 2006 no?
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060422054638/http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=941
>
> Appointing yet another person with wikia links looks kinda dicey no?
I hav
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> I wonder what takes so long to upload a small data file?
It needs anonymising and randomising first, so it isn't just
uploading. It seems an unnecessary delay, though, I agree. The
pairwise results are all up on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Results
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> This sounds rather familiar. Let's see... When was the last time that the
> Wikimedia Foundation might have been caught red-handed, putting itself into
> a situation that favored Wikia in a financial manner, using tax-advantaged
> funds, in a way that was not entirely ope
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> Thomas Dalton:
>
> If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
> problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why
> they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything
> potentially libellous, as a T
2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of disrepute.
> Is that the problem?
If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why
they want to edit it before publishing
2009/8/25 Anthony :
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
>> > I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
>> disrepute.
>> > Is that the problem?
>>
>> If you said anything that co
2009/8/25 Gregory Maxwell :
> Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> SAN FRANCISCO and REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Aug. 25 /PRNewswire/ --
> Omidyar Network today announced a grant of up to $2 million over two
> years to the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organizatio
2009/8/25 Anthony :
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/25 Nathan :
>> > This is good news. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that a major
>> donor
>> > gains a limited voice on the Board, particularly when the donor ca
2009/8/25 Nathan :
> This is good news. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that a major donor
> gains a limited voice on the Board, particularly when the donor can offer
> expertise and connections in addition to funding. It also serves as a more
> plausible explanation for Halprin's appointment
2009/8/25 Anthony :
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM, James Forrester wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
>> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > membership organizations. Wales was right when
2009/8/25 Ziko van Dijk :
> That evil man gets into the Advisory Board without having made one
> single edit, by paying simply a lousy 2 million bucks. How terrible.
> :-)
Not the advisory board, the real one.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@
2009/8/25 Erik Moeller :
> More importantly, please review the questions and answers page about the
> grant.
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009QA
How can you have a Q&A on a topic like this that doesn't even address
the matter than you have so
2009/8/25 Anthony :
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/25 Erik Moeller :
>> > More importantly, please review the questions and answers page about the
>> grant.
>> >
>> >
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki
2009/8/25 Steven Walling :
> I think everyone needs to calm down a little.
> Remember that we just got 2 million dollars to further our mission, and that
> the board seat appointment (which isn't an unusual practice, at least in my
> experience) does nothing to impede our work and the positive impa
2009/8/25 Anthony :
> Occurring on the same day may imply "related" but it does not, beyond a
> reasonable doubt, equal "sold". If it did, we'd have a whole lot more
> prostitution convictions.
As I've already said, whether or not it was sold is irrelevant, it
*looks* like it was sold, and that i
2009/8/26 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/8/25 Thomas Dalton :
>> How can you have a Q&A on a topic like this that doesn't even address
>> the matter than you have sold a seat on the board? Has the WMF
>> completely lost touch with the community? It should be obvious that
&
2009/8/26 Tim Starling :
> Let me say for the record that I'm not at all happy with this data
> being released, since it allows vote-buying.
I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to
releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this
information? Is it ju
2009/8/26 Sebastian Moleski :
> This may be a heretic question but I'd like to pose it anyway: why
> should it be necessary or appropriate for the Foundation to discuss
> this subject with the project communities? How does this appointment
> have any impact on the activities within the projects?
I
2009/8/26 Sebastian Moleski :
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> Wikimedia is a community driven movement, big decisions should be made
>> by the community.
>
> Those are undoubtedly interesting assertions. Assuming
2009/8/26 Guillaume Paumier :
> Hello
>
> [I didn't read the whole thread, apologies if this point has already been
> made.]
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> Those answers don't address the fact that you've just given a
2009/8/26 Robert Rohde :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>>> However, in this case, even if we
>>> assume the seat was outright "bought" for $2M, I don't think there are
>>
>> I'm not sure why people are behaving as
2009/8/26 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Guillaume Paumier
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> It is very common for members of the board of a non-profit
>> organisation to donate money to support this organisation.
>
> It was my understanding that the appointment was of Matt Halprin, not
>
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Guillaume Paumier
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:> A
>> board member (or volunteer, or anyone who goes around and asks
>> > someone to donate money to a cause) has some leverage if they can
>> > answer: « I
I've decided to take a different approach to the one I have been
taking on the subject of our new expert board member. I'm going to
make a constructive suggestion (perhaps I should have started with
that approach...).
It is self-evident that the WMF board needs to make decisions about a
wide range
2009/8/27 Casey Brown :
> The Advisory Board hasn't really been used that well, at least not to
> my knowledge. There should probably be more effort placed on taking
> advantage of that expertise there, but also keeping in mind the
> community-related expertise (ie. this mailing list). It's all a
2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
illegal. A trustee has a legal obligation to do what they think is
best for
2009/8/27 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
>> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
>> Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
>
> I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
> i
2009/8/27 Gregory Maxwell :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> I think part of the problem is that there were some odd ideas about
>> how the Advisory Board would work. For example, it has a chair. I
>> can't work out why. Why would the
2009/8/27 Ting Chen :
> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
> discussion. As an advisory board member you are not obliged to do
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
> According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
I think partners usually are employees, just ones with a stake in the business.
___
founda
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount of
> vandalism? Has this been studied?
It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
wise. I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
reverts of vandalism rather
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
>> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
>> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
>
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Plourde :
> Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
> business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I don't think that is the case. The board has a duty of oversight and
is generally responsible for high level decisions about the di
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> I agree that companies often misuse the term "partner" for people who aren't
> actually "partners" (although I can't think of an example, can you?).
Big banks often do it. I remember reading a news article about Goldman
Sachs announcing its new batch of partners. They were al
2009/8/27 Ting Chen :
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>>
>>> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
>>> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
>>> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST
2009/8/27 Michael Snow :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>> The best examples you can see are Stu West and Jan-Bard de
>>> Vreede. Stu with his technical and financial expertise is simply there,
>>> in every meeting, in the board mailing list, we don't have to go out a
2009/8/28 Stephen Bain :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see any sufficient benefit to
>> releasing the data to make it worth the risk. Why do people want this
>> information? Is it just be
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
>>
>> Can
2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> severity of vandalism.
>>
>
> Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
That's not practical. That would require a person to go through
article histories revision by revision, probabl
2009/8/28 Gregory Maxwell :
> This is somewhat labor intensive, but only somewhat as it doesn't take
> an inordinate number of samples to produce representative results.
> This should be the gold standard for this kind of measurement as it
> would be much closer to what people actually want to know
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
>> >> severity of vandalism.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Umm...
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> I suggested a better approach last time we had this thread: statistical
> sampling.
This research was based on a sample. What are you talking about?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:
2009/8/28 Ting Chen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> That's only because we don't specify such an obligation. There is
>> nothing stopping us having such an obligation included in the rules
>> for the advisory board.
>>
> Yes there are. See my answer to Antony
2009/8/28 Geoffrey Plourde :
> There can only be one leader in a business.
Not true at all. There are often lots of people leading different
things. The leader of all the leaders is the board, which isn't one
person, it is a committee.
___
foundation-l
2009/8/28 Michael Snow :
> As the portion of your email making that caveat did not appear until
> after quoting another portion of Ting's message, suggesting that it
> would be addressing some other aspect of the discussion, I missed that
> you had hedged what seemed to be a pretty plain statement.
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> If you're going to do it, maybe we should work on a rough-consensus
> objective definition of "vandalism" before you release the file, though...
Don't we have a consensus definition already? Vandalism is bad faith
editing. You may also want to include test edits since they ar
2009/8/28 Ting Chen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> a) Could you give an example of an organisation with over 100 board members?
>>
> IOC has, ok only more than 70 members, not totally 100.
The IOC Executive Board (which is the relevant body to compare to) has
15 members.
http://
2009/8/28 Florence Devouard :
> First because it requires the chapter to actually agree to a certain
> degree with the action of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree
with. If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion
(I
2009/8/28 Sebastian Moleski :
> I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and more
> problems following your logic. Let's take this apart:
I think any response I can give will basically boil down to:
"[D]emocracy is the worst form of government except all those other
for
2009/8/28 Sebastian Moleski :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Sebastian Moleski :
>> > I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and
>> more
>> > problems following your logic. Let's tak
2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
> In the interest of creating *informed* discussion, please note the
> publication of Episode 82 of Wikipedia Weekly - an interview with Matt
> Halprin.
>
> In this, at timecode 9:15 he is specifically asked about the issue of
> the donation+board membership.
>
> http://wikip
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> I think the main valid reason is that it's kind of rude to ask someone like
> Halprin to commit a certain portion of his quite valuable time to the
> project, absolutely free, and not to even allow him one board vote (out of
> what, 10 now?).
I don't see why. I donate lots of
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
>> > In the interest of creating *informed* discussion, please note the
>> > publication of Episode 82 of Wikipedia Weekly - an interview with Matt
>> > Ha
2009/8/28 Anders Wennersten :
> I have only been on this list for a month, but I am confused over what I
> read. There are over 700 subscribers, but two, Anthony and Thoams Dalton
> is allowed, to generate more then a third of all entries and often just
> these two are driving a whole thread discus
2009/8/28 Tim Landscheidt :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> The WMF as a membership organisation would be great, but I don't think
>> it is practical. A better option (which I have discussed with a few
>> poeple) would be having the chapters as members
2009/8/28 Tim Landscheidt :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>>> [...]
>>>> The WMF as a membership organisation would be great, but I don't think
>>>> it is practical. A better option (which I have discussed with a few
>>>> poeple)
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>
>> Maybe it would be enough to have someone to tell those people that
>> they have expressed what is on their mind and should no longer bother
>> the others.
>
>
> You could try that, but I have a feeling that those peopl
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> I have no idea if it would or wouldn't, but it's certainly within the power
> of the board to pressure Sue to hire a CTO sooner rather than later. It's
> certainly also within the power of the board to ensure that budgets are set
> honestly and that the money allocated to tec
2009/8/28 Liam Wyatt :
>> Personally, I use an email filter called "my brain". I look at subject
>> lines and I don't read emails that don't interest me. It has worked
>> for years with great success.
>
>
> Hmm... you must be interested in lots of things then
You may want to go through the thr
2009/8/28 Anthony :
> Depends how you want to look at it, since the dollar bills aren't color
> coded or anything. But the last budget I bothered to look at (which I
> believe is the one before the last one released) was underspent in the area
> of technology and overspent in other areas. So I th
2009/8/28 Gregory Kohs :
> Thomas Dalton asked:
>
> "Has tech money been spent on other things previously? That is news to me."
>
> For your edification, Thomas, since at least you seem willing to listen, as
> opposed to some others here who simply "tut tut"
2009/8/29 Delirium :
> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
> staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and communi
There are too many emails in this thread since I last read it for me
to reply to them separately, so will just post a general monologue and
hopefully address most of the points made. Please excuse the length of
this email.
I consider this a discussion list, first and foremost. It is used for
makin
someone changing their email
client or by someone else not sending the emails they would like to
send, I think the former is the better solution.
> I use Gmail, inbox-flooding isn't such an issue for me here. However,
> when I open a thread and begin to read and find there are 30 messages
>
2009/8/30 Anthony :
> By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little
> thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l?
I'm not on internal-l, but it seems unlikely. If there has been any
canvassing (and I see no evidence of it) I expect it would be done in
private. intern
2009/8/30 Brian :
> Quite the contrary, it is an even larger problem to be subscribed to an
> increasingly large number of ever fragmenting lists. Additionally, a
> read-only announce list would serve to stifle community discussion of WMF
> announcements. If the Foundation wants to have an announce
2009/9/5 Gregory Kohs :
> "Geni" wrote:
>
> ++
> Given how spectacularly incorrect your published accusations were
> that's a pretty pathetic defense. Are you going to apologise?
>
> --
> geni
>
> ++
>
> I reported that the Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to sub-let space that it
>
2009/9/5 Anthony :
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/9/5 Gregory Kohs :
>> > Which "accusations" do you speak of?
>>
>> "That's curious, considering they had "outgrown" space in January 2009,
>> su
On 11 August 2010 19:54, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
> Yaroslav: X has no problem with Israel, there's even an embassy in country X,
> from which he applied the visa, but since he is on a work permit in the
> Middle east, the embassy sticks the visa on another paper. Since the country
> where he work
On 31 August 2010 21:56, Sue Gardner wrote:
> They're not exactly technical issues: I just have a headache :-(
Go and have a lie down - by far the best headache cure. Get well soon!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubsc
On 27 September 2010 10:14, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up
> of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them
> a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means
> that
On 27 September 2010 20:36, Milos Rancic wrote:
> The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free
> knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the
> Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we
> should think how to solve that problem.
>
> And we
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
> Kosovo independence.
Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
probably best for the WM movement, since the Serbian chapter
presumably can't oper
On 28 September 2010 15:27, Joan Goma wrote:
>> On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>> > We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
>> > Kosovo independence.
>>
>> Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
>> probably best for t
On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument.
> It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is
> administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
The Serbian chapter agreement
On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk wrote:
> guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we know
> what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people together
> in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would be
> the best way to
On 29 September 2010 12:24, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about
> providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the
> WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia.
Actually, I'
On 29 September 2010 13:09, Lodewijk wrote:
> That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to
> actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such
> decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still
> missing. We dont know who the grou
On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by
>> assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work
>> out fine, d
On 30 September 2010 20:31, Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually,
On 10 October 2010 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
> that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
> important, now at
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Five-year_targets the
> sec
On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote:
> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
>
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility
between Google's policies and the
On 6 November 2010 17:07, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> ads there would be able
> to be served in a way that is both relevant to the end-user (based on the
> term being searched for)
That's a big problem. To use a somewhat clichéd example, we should not
be showing adverts for either Coca-cola or Pepsi to p
801 - 900 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
