On 30/06/12 23:15, Thomas Dalton wrote:
This draft act isn't aimed at publishers, it is aimed at service
providers, so it would definitely be the WMF that is considered
responsible for Wikipedia. I can't see any other interpretation.
Is it true that the servers serve in one country and the squids
There are four servers/squids:
pmtpa Hostway (formerly PowerMedium) in Tampa, Florida. sdtpa Equinix
(formerley Switch and Data) in Tampa, Florida. knams Kennisnet in
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.esams EvoSwitch in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nothing in the UK!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 0
> From: Tom Morris
> The reason I think we should think about it is precisely because it's so very
> badly worded.
>
> Without some informed legal thinking about what exactly the bill is likely to
> mean in
> practice, we probably can't know for sure.
Unfortunately, I don't expect informed l
> Is there a plan in place for how WMUK is going to put together its
> 2013 annual plan? We need to start work on it very soon.
>
We have just agreed how we're going to go about this, I'm pleased to say :-)
We have a deadline of 1 October to submit an activity plan to the (yet to
be formed) Funds
That looks like a good process. My only concern is the reference to the 5
year plan - we don't have one yet. We have a draft, but it's a long way
from being a finished plan with full community buy-in. I don't think it can
be finished and ratified by the community in time to be much use in putting
t
On Sunday, July 1, 2012, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> That looks like a good process. My only concern is the reference to the 5
year plan - we don't have one yet. We have a draft, but it's a long way
from being a finished plan with full community buy-in. I don't think it can
be finished and ratified by
On 01/07/12 10:59, Richard Symonds wrote:
There are four servers/squids:
pmtpa
Hostway (formerly PowerMedium) in Tampa, Florida.
sdtpa
Equinix (formerley Switch and Data) in Tampa, Florida.
knams
Kennisnet in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
esams
EvoSwitch in Amsterdam, the Netherlan
On 1 July 2012 19:44, Gordon Joly wrote:
> So, USA and Europe. But not the UK.
Yes. Rest assured the WMF is not so foolish as to base anything in the UK.
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailm
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 1 July 2012 19:44, Gordon Joly wrote:
>
>> So, USA and Europe. But not the UK.
>
> Yes. Rest assured the WMF is not so foolish as to base anything in the UK.
>
None of which will matter if the law is so broadly drawn that
Wikimedia UK or e
On 1 Jul 2012, at 21:00, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 1 July 2012 19:44, Gordon Joly wrote:
>>
>>> So, USA and Europe. But not the UK.
>>
>> Yes. Rest assured the WMF is not so foolish as to base anything in the UK.
>>
>
> None of which will
On 1 July 2012 13:00, Tom Morris wrote:
> None of which will matter if the law is so broadly drawn that
> Wikimedia UK or even an individual Wikimedian could be held to be an
> operator of a telecommunications system.
It's entirely foreseeable that UK police would consider anyone with
'higher' ri
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 21:22, Michael Peel wrote:
> Are you volunteering? I don't believe that we have WMUK staff or trustee time
> that can be put towards leading a discussion of the details and implications
> that the bill could have for Wikimedia (globally or locally), or to
> coordinate w
I'll have a chat with Jon tomorrow and we'll see what we can do!
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 1, 2012 9:58 PM, "Tom Morris" wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 21:22, Michael Peel wrote:
> > Are you volunteering? I don't believe that we have WMUK staff or trustee
> time that can be put to
On 1 Jul 2012, at 21:58, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 21:22, Michael Peel wrote:
>> Are you volunteering? I don't believe that we have WMUK staff or trustee
>> time that can be put towards leading a discussion of the details and
>> implications that the bill could have for Wiki
On 1 July 2012 21:46, James Forrester wrote:
> On 1 July 2012 13:00, Tom Morris wrote:
>> None of which will matter if the law is so broadly drawn that
>> Wikimedia UK or even an individual Wikimedian could be held to be an
>> operator of a telecommunications system.
>
> It's entirely foreseeable
Hi all,
I would like to know what other people understand as the "open access
ethos of Wikimedia UK". The reason I ask is that I have been informed that
Midas - who are delivering the Training for Trainers programme - have been
arguing that as they chose to use a process which was not written for
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:41, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> How about we avoid spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt?
When it comes to FUD-spreaders, James F. isn't high on my list.
As for doubt, I'm okay with a bit more doubt. A rather effective little method
of finding things out we call "science
The tender said materials *produced* would need to be freely licensed.
If they are using pre-existing materials for part of the course, then
not freely licensing those doesn't necessarily contradict the terms of
the tender. It is unfortunate, though.
On 1 July 2012 22:47, wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I
Where is the tender document?
Tom
On 1 July 2012 22:52, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The tender said materials *produced* would need to be freely licensed.
> If they are using pre-existing materials for part of the course, then
> not freely licensing those doesn't necessarily contradict the terms of
My understanding (the people to ask would be Martin and Jon, but this is my
understanding in the interim), is that there was one document - designed to
evaluate learning styles and divide participants into four categories - which
they used, but for which the copyright belonged to a third party.
Tom, there is a copy on the office wiki, and a copy was sent to each panel
member (Jon,Martin, and myself). It's not my place to share the contents with
you, but you can ask Jon or Martin if you feel strongly.
Having refreshed my memory, Midas' bid stated that the handouts they used
during the
The tender document is at:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/Tender
Yes, I agree that the tender document can be interpreted in that way. This
is why I posed the question in terms of the ethos.
If it's just one document as Harry suggests, the maybe someone can
reproduce something
> From: Thomas Dalton
> On 1 July 2012 21:46, James Forrester wrote:
> > On 1 July 2012 13:00, Tom Morris wrote:
> >> None of which will matter if the law is so broadly drawn that
> >> Wikimedia UK or even an individual Wikimedian could be held to be an
> >> operator of a telecommunications sy
On 1 July 2012 23:18, wrote:
> Wrong. This act clearly sets out to allow the police access to stored
> data without recourse to a judge.
Then that's the bit to be complaining about. (FYI, it is rarely a
judge that authorises these things, it's usually a magistrate. It is a
magistrate under this
24 matches
Mail list logo
