Hoi,
According to an article on the BBC website, it is now possible to have a URL
that is completely in the script used for a language. This means that a
Russian URL would be completely in the Cyrillic script and it would not need
to end with .org.
I would like the Wikimedia Foundation to get the necessary domains to
support the scripts that we have language versions in. The BBC article
explains that people do find the need to move from one script to the other
as problematic and cumbersome. Obviously, we can have the necessary mapping
from our current Latin based URLs to the ones in other scripts. This will be
an important feature because we want people to easily move between our
projects.
Thanks,
GerardM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8333209.stm
Thomas Dalton writes:
Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an
> employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace
> you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.
In the U.S.A., employers operate under similar though not identical
constraints. This is true even when the employers are charities are
public-interest organizations.
It's not really an issue about commitment to transparency. Anyone who wants
the Foundation and similar organizations to fully disclose all personnel
matters needs to lobby Congress to create immunity from lawsuits for such
organizations that do so. Until then, such organizations -- and, in my
experience, government agencies as well, except for political appointees --
are obligated by the legal framework we work in to refrain from disclosing
every detail about even the most friendly and business-like departures.
--Mike
In a message dated 10/31/2009 6:18:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> I have never heard of someone being fired and working a month's notice
> and without evidence to the contrary I will assume that the WMF aren't
> trying to intentionally mislead us about who is and isn't working for
> them. That leaves me to assume he was not fired. There are all kinds
> of other possibilities; I've listed the ones I think are most likely
> earlier in this thread.>>
Sure you have Thomas. It happens all the time. At one of my jobs I was
fired and still "worked" for three more weeks. Of course I wasn't actually
there, but I was still listed as there for three more weeks and got paid for
it.
And again they are not intentionally misleading you by being silent, and
the mere appearence of an "end date" is not a statement that someone is
"working". You may as well say it's a statement of the last day of their
severence package. I don't find that date evidentionary that a person is still
physically on-site.
One of my bosses had a six-month parachute. For the first month he
actually showed up! (believe it or dont) and sat in his office making phone calls
to his broker or golf buddies. The remaining five months he didnt even
bother to show up. He was still listed on the payroll "working" throughout the
six month period. And that's what the personnel records show.
Will
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> It's possible, but since that would require the WMF to intentionally
> mislead the community and there is no evidence to support it, I think
> it is unlikely to be the case.>>
That would be true only if the Foundation had actually made a statement of
some sort, and they haven't. So they aren't misleading by silence, they
just aren't commenting at all.
Will