What can be done with the age restriction plan *not* to make it drive
away developers?
http://brightbyte.de/page/Think_of_the_children
That post points out how bad and unclear the wording of the resolution
actually is, and that's coming from someone using English as their
second language.
- d.
Absolutely. My definitions of what is required and by whom has not yet
been completed.
Therefore the 60 days has not yet begun.
Thanks.
Cary
Casey Brown wrote:
> I believe bastique said that it was 60 days from his official post outlining
> everything which needs to be done. That post has yet to come.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Reaves
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:47 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Think of the chilllllllllllldren
>
> Did the 60 days start on April 11? That should be clarified.
>
> --John Reaves
>
>
> On 5/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What can be done with the age restriction plan *not* to make it drive
>> away developers?
>>
>> http://brightbyte.de/page/Think_of_the_children
>>
>> That post points out how bad and unclear the wording of the resolution
>> actually is, and that's coming from someone using English as their
>> second language.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
volunteer coordinator, at cbass(a)wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to
contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation,
Kat Walsh
--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
Hi there,
the proposal to close the Siberian/Northern Russian Wikipedia edition
has now been discussed for almost half a year. While I understand that
no member of the board will be keen to get involved into this ongoing
row, I feel that some sort of action would be needed.
Personally, I don't have a firm opinion on whether or not this edition
should be closed or should be allowed to continue (I am, however,
quite convinced, that Yaroslav Zolotarev's "Siberian language" is a
non-notable conlang, rather than an authentic representation of
Northern Russian dialects, but that's a side issue for the moment)
However, after peaking into some of the texts available at ru-sib, I
do understand that many from the Russian-speaking wikipedia community
are seriously offended. There are some pages, which can with some
legitimacy be classified as hate-speech, including e.g.
"moskal'ska svoloch' " (an approximate translation would be "Muscovite
scum" or "Muscovite swines", whereas "moskali" is a derogative term
for "Russians")
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C…
and "moskal'ski vybliadki"
http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C…
The former has been around since June 2006, the latter has been added
only in March. Both pages are write-protected and, as I wrote, their
content is fairly offensive against Russian.
While I understand that the BoT is not in a position to micromanage or
censor content in individual language editions and that this would be
virtually impossible given the language barrier, I do see some
increasing urgency in addressing this matter. This would not
necessarily mean that the whole edition would have to be closed, but
still, I feel, that someone from the board could and should kindly
approach Mr. Zolotaryov and ask him to take down at least the more
tasteless of his pages.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
http://www.infoe.de/
I would like to start editing on the English Wikipedia to correct a lot
of bogus Native American content which is getting into the dumps. I
have been painfully watching a large number of Native articles getting
vandalized and garbage being inserted, and with few folks competent in
Native
Culture to fix a lot of it. I also have stayed off the site for almost
two years and this is more than long enough. Had I robbed a 7-11, and
and entered a plea in abeyance, I would be eligible for expungement at
this point in the real world.
I am posting to this list since it may be a foundation issue. If there
are no objections, there are a large number of articles needing
updating, and I
plan to be bold.
Anyone with objections can air them in the open, in this forum, so they
can be dealt with.
Jeff
I would like to propose (as a community member) that
http://en.literateprograms.org/
be merged into the Wikimedia Foundation family of projects. I have
spoken with the founder of LiteratePrograms, Derrick Coetzee, and he
would agree to such a merger.
LP documents computer program source code with in-line explanations
beyond simple source comments. Using a special extension, all code
belonging to an example program can be downloaded as a package with
ease. It is, in my opinion, ideally positioned to become a wonderful
learning resource for budding programmers in any programming language.
The structure of LP is fundamentally different from any existing
Wikimedia project. Yet, it is an educational project with great value.
LP currently uses the MIT/X11 license, which is similar to CC-BY, but
more suitable for source code; I believe this makes sense as these
snippets are typically so small that they should not be encumbered
further with copyleft.
WMF would be able to give the project sustainable hosting and exposure
to a vast community. What do you think? If there is no consensus, I'd
be willing to organize a community poll as we did for other projects,
but I really see very little that speaks against LP becoming part of
the WMF project family.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I'm wondering what kinds of hoops need to be jumped through in order to be
granted an exception to this resolution? The final provision does mention
that exceptions can be made by the board. en.wikibooks has an enthusiastic,
highly-motivated, and very professional vandal fighter who had been a
candidate for checkuser (a very popular candidate), and who cannot now be
given those tools because of his age. I would be a fool if i did not at
least inquire about the possibility of this individual being granted such an
exception.
--Andrew Whitworth
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineap…
On 5/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > "Did not vote" would be ambiguous. The proper distinction should be
> > between "abstain" and "absent". "Absent" in particular states that the
> > person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he
> > wanted to.
> >
> That doesn't seem to be the case, though. From the description
> provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a
> meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement. There was
> no "there" to be present or absent from.
>
> Consent agreements usually have to be unanimous, but apparently
> Florida law allows for "majority consent agreements", a term which I
> just made up and has zero Google hits.
>
Looking at the Florida law, 617.0821 Action by directors without a meeting:
"Unless the articles of incorporation or the bylaws provide otherwise,
action required or permitted by this act to be taken at a board of
directors' meeting or committee meeting may be taken without a meeting
if the action is taken by all members of the board or of the
committee. The action must be evidenced by one or more written
consents describing the action taken and signed by each director or
committee member."
The way I interpret that, the bylaws can provide that such consent
agreements are not allowed, but it can't provide for consent
agreements by less than a unanimous vote.
So if you asked me for my not-a-lawyer opinion, this whole majority
consent stuff isn't proper. A non-unanimous decision has to be made
at a meeting, with sufficient notice provided to all board members,
unless such notice is waived in writing.
Anthony