Hi Jim, I have no idea who you are exactly, whether you are involved in Wikimedia at all, but could you please explain what the constructive part of your messages was? If you are not willing to have a *constructive* discussion, and only are willing to make personal attacks, please do no longer post on this list. Thanks. BR, Lodewijk 2007/9/22, jim gunn <jimgunnsigns(a)yahoo.ca>ca>:

Brian McNeil schrieb am 22.09.2007 10:16: This one sends out with *every* mail: List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>, <mailto:foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> Bye, Tim. -- http://wikipedistik.de

On 9/22/07, Michael Bimmler &lt;mbimmler(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, I quietly moderated him less than an hour after his first post. Austin

Actually, the unsubscribe information is included as part of the message headers, and different mail clients handle them differently. Notice that the quoted messages (below) don't include the unsubscribe information, though list info is included. I use Mozilla Thunderbird 2.0, and the unsubscribe info does not show up anywhere that I could find, except in the raw message source--not somewhere that the typical user is likely to look. Not making excuses for Mr. Gunn... -Rich Holton Michael Bimmler wrote:

Could you elaborate? Are you saying that it should be, in some way, obvious that London is a bad choice? In what way is that? There's more to decision making that cutting costs. Any change from the status quo is normally going to cost money. That's a pretty good point, I'm not really sure why the WMF needs to be near high-tech industry. Why not? You can work with your competition to mutual benefit, you know. WMF is an international organisation. Yes, they are registered in the US, but they do business around the world, which means they have to consider all kinds of legal systems. BLP is not based on Florida law. Libel law doesn't vary that much from place to place, BLP is intended to be safe from any major definition (same as our fair use policy), and the rest of BLP is based on ethics, which aren't set down in statutes of any state.

On 9/22/07, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Indeed. Moving from one US state to another is relatively painless; moving to the UK would have so many difficulties and considerations attached (not least being adjusting to local laws) as to make it unlikely to be a good choice. And as usual Andrew nails it... -Kat -- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: There's two major aspects here, and that's one of them. Firstly, as you say, it has a very broad interpretation of its jurisdiction. If you have standing in the UK - you have a reputation to be damaged - and someone publishes something in the UK, you can sue them. "Publishing", for the internet, is essentially defined as happening in the place you access the material from. So essentially, anything on the internet - even if written by a Canadian and hosted in Brazil, defaming a Dutchman - can give rise to a lawsuit. Secondly, it's very favourable to the plaintiff. You don't have to prove any actual damage; only that it would "tend to" make people think the worse of you. You don't have to prove it's untrue; indeed, you can still win if it *is* true, in some circumstances. All the burden of proof is on the defendant. What this means is that, if you want to bring a defamation lawsuit, the UK is about your best option in terms of your likelihood of success. And thanks to the first part, it's surprisingly easy to justify bringing a case in the UK... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Thomas Dalton wrote: The difference is not just a matter of the laws; where the assets are is important too. Now, assuming that a British suit could be successful, there are few assets to be attached in the UK, and the US courts won't recognize a UK defamation decision. Ec

On 22/09/2007, Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Because wikipedians are survival minded. From the point of view of the average wikipedian the job of the foundation is to keep the servers running. Thus having the foundation take on extra liabilities (higher rents and wages and the like) is worrying. It's the standard crisis analysis. If the money stops coming in how long can we keep going. Moving somewhere expensive doesn't help. Means nothing if you can't afford them in SF. -- geni

On 9/22/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think most people in this thread have said important things that need to be said, and are clearly insightful as a whole. This is a point though where I really have to say something. At this time, with its prominence as a premier web-presense, wikipedia *will* not run out of money to run. We are so well established as top-tier, that even just tickling that prominence for drops of ad or adlike revenue would pretty much swamp us with more money than the foundation has *fundamental* need for, to keep physically running indefinitely. So the matter of the foundation going broke is not even a red herring at this point, infact it is so far off the scale that common similes fail here. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Florence Devouard wrote: I think the last part of your comment is key. The Bay Area is great for wealthy people like senior management; less so for other people (the median house costs more than US$500,000). Unless you plan to only hire wealthy people, or to pay very high salaries, nobody can really afford to live anywhere near a downtown-SF office. And I say this as someone temporarily living in the Bay Area (how do I afford it? tiny, temporary rental housing until I finish up my PhD and move somewhere more affordable). It's also extremely expensive for visitors; any savings in flights for SFO versus Florida will be swamped by the massively more expensive hotels. Since this is supposedly a grass-roots-based organization, that ought to have been a consideration IMO. -Mark

On 23/09/2007, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: IRC thumbed for Dallas. Detroit was rejected. -- geni

Speaking personally, of course: Ewwww... To close to the Microsoft! Cary

Andrew Gray wrote: Some more than others. It's certainly true of all the U.S. cities the foundation considered (Boston, NYC, Washington, SF), but for some reason they considered *only* the most expensive U.S. cities. And those aren't even the ones with the best plane connections, supposedly a major reason for leaving Florida. The top 4 U.S. cities for international plane connections are Atlanta, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, of which only New York was considered. And Atlanta and Chicago are considerably cheaper than S.F. (especially Atlanta). -Mark

On 9/24/07, Daniel Mayer &lt;maveric149(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: What is it that the office is used for, anyway? Answering phones, receiving checks, maintaining the books... I can't think of anything else, but I'm probably missing a whole lot, right? Which employees report to the office on a regular basis (not just for meetings which could be held at a hotel or something)?

Delirium wrote: With the way the US mortgage market is going there could be some cheap foreclosures to pick-up. If that includes a small apartment building. We could have a wiki-house as a place for visitors to find inexpensive accommodation. Ec

Thomas Dalton wrote: This was just a matter of throwing a new idea into the mix. Of course, these details need to be considered. I would hardly call it a hotel though. I'm talking about some kind of co-operative arrangement on a cost recovery basis. Ec

phoebe ayers wrote: That adds excitement to the idea. 8-) Ec

On 9/22/07, Stephen Bain &lt;stephen.bain(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Where's the picture of the whiteboard en.wikipedia home page art when you need it...? Commenting on SF Bay Area housing - It's very expensive, but there are reasonably nice lower price areas with good commute options. If the Foundation ends up near the BART rapid transit system (hopefully!), then that runs from far out in the East Bay in four separate directions, in through San Francisco proper and south of it. Houses and condos and appartments are far cheaper in Livermore, Walnut Creek, etc. than in San Francisco or Cupertino. I hope that the Foundation considers locating outside San Francisco city limits, however; getting in to San Francisco if you're not coming in on BART can be difficult at rush hour. In particular, for coming in for meetings and the like, downtown SF is hard to get into and find parking in at midday. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 9/23/07, Kat Walsh &lt;mindspillage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Rule 34. ... oh wait, that deals with something else ;P

Dan Collins wrote: That seems to suggest that an E-string is nothing more than a virtual G-string. Could we also say that a really exciting message on the net hits the E-spot. Ec

On 9/23/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: BART connects directly to SFO airport, and is a short shuttle bus away from OAK airport. Airport access should not be a problem from any rail-accessible location.

On 9/23/07, Marc Riddell &lt;michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote: I wouldn't recommend looking for office space in the Haight, though. No good long distance rapid transit. In dot-com terms; SOMA was ground zero, but that's faded a lot and spread out to the rest of the Bay Area. (For those not familar, SOMA is South of Market Area, the area south of Market Street, bounded by Market, Van Ness, the 101/80 freeways, and King Street / China Basin on the south. It's about a square mile.) The vibrant geek culture of the late 1990s in that area is muted by comparison; there's still a focal point there, but it's much less central to the region's modern web-based activities. I spent a number of years working in the area and in the web industry, until the bust. It's still a cool place to be, but it's not the same. For the most part, everyone got cars and commutes now, so the scene diffused... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

on 9/23/07 7:34 PM, Sue Gardner at sgardner(a)wikimedia.org wrote: Sue, Although I don't live in the city any longer, I visit there as often as I can. I do have a number of personal and professional contacts there, and would be happy to ask them for some input. Do I have your permission to give them your email address so they could contact you directly with any questions they might have? Marc

On 9/23/07, Sue Gardner &lt;sgardner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: In my personal opinion... In San Francisco, the two parts of town that I would recommend would be SOMA (despite my earlier comments) and on Market up between say 7th and 12th streets. There's some parking around SOMA, though it's not great. The 101 and 80 freeways (landing for the Bay Bridge) go through or touch down in SOMA. MUNI trains go mostly around, not through, SOMA, but the buses connect on through the middle. The Caltrain trains coming up from the Peninsula land at 5th and King St, at the south edge of SOMA. SOMA ranges from upscale to slightly seedy, but is not cheap. Market and very slightly south of market in the 7th to 12th street area is cheaper, but much seedier. It's not as freeway accessable and has lousy parking, but is right on the BART and MUNI train lines. Ten years ago this area was a bit too dangerous; it's still downscale, but not so bad. Other areas of SF are probably not good matches, though someone else may have an area they'd recommend. Looking outside SF proper - In the East Bay, there's a small tech area in Emeryville, another in downtown Berkeley, and some signs of life in downtown Oakland. Downtown Berkeley is near UC Berkeley there, BART runs underground through downtown. Driving in to town from further away is not great, but not as bad as Market street in SF. I don't know real estate pricing in Berkeley right now, but it was midrange. Much less business-ey around there. Emeryville is all business, with a little residential for spice. Focusing in on retail, but it has Pixar, Leapfrog, and some other IT industry. I worked in Emeryville for a couple of years, it's not hugely metropolitan but was comfortable. It's right across the bay from San Francisco, just north of where the Bay Bridge touches down. Prices were cheap, have come up some. BART is a couple of miles away, but there are free city buses that go up there. Downtown oakland... sort of wierd. They've kicked off urban renewal and it's not terribly unsafe; I don't have a good feeling for the business climate. BART runs underground through town, and freeway access is generally good. Looking further south on the Peninsula and south bay... There are little pockets of computer culture up and down the Peninsula south of San Francisco. There's a big one near where the San Mateo Bridge lands, near the junction of highways 92 and 101. Some of these areas are near Caltrain tracks, otherwise it's buses or driving. Palo Alto is near money (venture capital up in the hills, and some downtown), Stanford, Caltrain runs through town, and there are good freeways above town in the hills (280) and down at the base of town (101), though it takes a while to get to the middle. Much of it is pricey. University Ave is probably too expensive, but it's the most cosmopolitan. Going further into the South Bay... (not sure how "SF" focused you are) Downtown Mountain View is not too far from 85, 237, and 101 freeways, has Caltrain trains and the VTA Light Rail stopping right at the edge of downtown. Not too pricey, but downtown is fairly small. There are other areas in San Jose and the rest of the South Bay which might meet the general criteria. It tends to be a blend of suburbia, retail, and business, with little centers of each all around. Downtown San Jose is somewhat on an upswing, has Caltrain nearby and Light Rail right through the middle, and is close to San Jose airport. I know many areas of the South Bay in pretty good detail, but I don't know how open you are to going that far south. Where I'm coming from... I work doing IT consulting work for a company based in Santa Clara, near San Jose. I've worked for long periods around in SF, Emeryville, Berkeley, Oakland, San Mateo, Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Jose, Cupertino, ... around a lot. More in the South Bay than elsewere, but a fair amount in downtown SF or SOMA (4 years worth? 5 maybe). I'm not a business real estate person, but some of my IT work has included IT facilities, and I've been familiar with the facilities people and leasing issues to some degree nearly everywhere I've worked. To second something I think Phoebe hinted at in passing... A good resource would be to ping all the people who attended the en.wikipedia SF meetups 2 and 3 (a few months ago, and last weekend) - the first was great, I was sick for the second, but it sounds like turnout was good and people had fun. They will undoubtedly have their own opinions and experiences. Should there be a page on Meta? 8-) -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

on 9/23/07 12:00 AM, Stephen Bain at stephen.bain(a)gmail.com wrote: That's why there would be a big red button on the wall marked (undo) Marc

Hi, First of all, even selfish, I welcome this move: it means I should no more overnight only for talking WMF staff in their office hour: now, it is for me 23 - 7 in my local time. Moving in SF makes it 20 - 4. For me as individual, and I assume for most of Australian / Chinese editors who are somehow involved into the foundation issue, I think it will make their coordination with WMF office much easier. I think even only this year (so 9 months) the 3 o'clock in the morning for me was suggested "good hour for everyone/involved parties to have a meeting" three times: I hope decreasing the geographic distance between the office and Pacific-rim volunteers strengthens mutual relationship between those, which seems to have been established well between the Atlantic communities. So, having experienced a sentiment of nonrecognition zed and distance, I think I easily imagine people in the US East Coast and in Europe feel sort of losses even to some extent. But I think the 7/8 hour differences which I experienced in collaboration with European editors are not so much painful for many people and the benefits which will bring from this move may compensate the community at large such feeling of loss. 9/22/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think Wikipedia has been an interest of press people, so having them in a near distance may improve the relation between those people. Also if I recall correctly, the Foundation only held its press conference in the occasions of Wikimania. If the office is located in a major city which some of global press people reside, is it more realistic for the office to have a press conference for things we would like to promote aggressively? So I think being in a reasonable distance from media people, it may not available in a city mainly considered "health resort" (at least En-Ja dictionaries I have say so about St. Pete, FL, so I assume it is a worldwide recognition) Cheers, -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

On 22/09/2007, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yeah. Financially speaking, moving outside the US would be a big hit (now and in the near future) simply due to exchange rates, if nothing else. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Dalton wrote: That's not quite how it works. The donations that are coming in aren't going to be changing, so WMF will still be getting most donations in USD. Except, because of the poor exchange rate, it is much more expensive to do just about everything in the UK, including renting flats, renting office space, buying food, buying bandwidth, etc. The donations wouldn't go nearly as far.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Dalton wrote: The point is, the non-USD donations are already being spent in the US at very favorable exchange rates. Go to the UK and that utterly evaporates, and you suddenly need a much larger income stream to achieve the same level of spending power. And I forgot to mention the single largest expenditure WMF has (or maybe second behind server costs): salaries. The Foundation would have to pay significantly more money in the UK Non sequitur? Assuming it's even true?

Thomas Dalton wrote: That's not a given. It depends on getting the economic fundamentals right at the national level, like not depending on debt to fuel spending. It will work as a short term tactic, but cannot be sustained as a long term strategy. Exchange rates merely reflect purchasing power, and that in turn is a composite of a number of factors. Some countries have gone bankrupt in the past, and the old currency became worthless. Ec

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Dalton wrote: You're still not getting it. Those 26% of donations that were not in USD had higher relative spending power than the donations made in USD because of the relatively favorable exchange rates. And if the Foundation were to move overseas, suddenly 74% of its donations would have significantly less spending power because of unfavorable exchange rates, which would make everyday operations significantly more expensive. Just as a gedankenexperiment, imagine a corporation that was run in Zimbabwe (where the average salary is less than a dollar a day). Now, if it's sources of income did not change, how could it possibly afford to operate out of the United States? It couldn't. It would be getting the same income, but everything would be much more expensive in the US. The same is true for the case of the WMF trying to move its operations to the UK. Its donations income wouldn't change, but the spending power of those donations would go significantly downwards because of the unfavorable exchange rates.

You can't just look at the exchange rate, you have to look at how the exchange compares with purchasing power. If the value of a dollar drops by 10%, but the price of everything denominated in dollars increases by 10%, then it makes absolutely no difference to anyone that isn't a currency speculator. Exchange rates and purchasing power move separately (the former usually much faster than the latter), but they do tend to converge over time.

On 9/22/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Exactly. Except for the part about the value of a dollar dropping by 10% combined with the price of everything denominated in dollars increasing by 10% not mattering to anyone that isn't a currency speculator. It'd matter greatly to everyone who has any asset or liability denominated in dollars (bank accounts, loans, CDs, accounts receivable, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc.). And it'd also matter greatly to anyone who has to pay taxes, due to the [[tax on the inflation tax]]. And, it'd also matter to anyone who imports or exports anything. Just about all of us are currency speculators in that sense, though most of us commoners benefit more by the value of the currency going down (as our dollar-denominated assets like bank accounts are less than our dollar-denominated liabilities like mortgages and credit card debt). But...anyway, that doesn't really matter that much to the foundation in terms of choosing a place to have an office, as the foundations assets and liabilities can be moved, and the foundation doesn't have to pay the [[tax on the inflation tax]]. I guess the export/import thing could be a problem. And when hyperinflation causes the government to collapse that could be problematic, but we've probably got a few years before that happens in the US...

Thomas Dalton wrote: Non-profits have to file financial reports too, and also need to convert currencies. Ec

Thomas Dalton wrote: Profits are characterized differently for "non-profits". Consider them as the difference between donations received and operating costs. If that difference drops by 10% the organisation is able to provide proportionally less in benefits to the community. Ec

Wikimedia*. :-) On 9/22/07, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

Anthony wrote: Even if they had, we should not accept it (and I doubt they would propose). We have gone through great efforts to fully separate from them and we now have no more financial/legal/technical relationships. Only love relationships, which is just fine. Ant

Anthony wrote: They could do it, and never fail to support us during Wikimania. Angela also very nicely proposed to support the fundraising effort with banners and announcement on Wikia sites. That is not the issue. They have the good will. There are friendly terms between us. But Wikia is Wikia. And WMF is WMF. Period. The issue is that we both benefit from staying separate from an organization point of view, both from fiscal perspective and from a communication perspective Fiscal: *this* belongs to this organization, *that* belongs to that organization. From an auditing perspective, having to identify who bought the staples is a nightmare (and more seriously, on whether some inappropriate arrangements are occuring between two organizations). Communication: we spent the entire past year trying to make it clear that the two organizations were unrelated. It is not to our benefit to be confused with Wikia. It is not easy to raise funds when Wikia just got 1000 millions of dollars from Amabon.com. It is not easy to explain to the press that the search engine has nothing to do with us. Jimbo went to great lengths to explain the difference between the two. People dealing with the press spent HOURS on these topics to get articles to be corrected. The message is now beginning to be understood. There is no way we should do anything that would bring confusion again. Whilst there are two overlaps on the board (with all due COI documentation, and lack of vote in cases of conflicts), I do not know of any overlap within the staff (can you cite a name ?). I see not why Angela being on the advboard implies that there is a relationship. Last, whether there are people both working at Wikia and at the arbcom is completely irrelevant to the Foundation itself. As I said earlier, the days of Michael on the board are counted. He does not have time for this role any more, so this will no more be an issue. Jimbo... though at Wikia... is hardly in SF himself. Besides, I see no reason why he would go to the office on a regular basis. That's not his role any more. In short, there is no reason for an overlap. And I would not be in favor of ANY overlap for the reasons above mentionned. I disagree with that statement. ant _______________________________________________

On 9/22/07, Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: I wasn't suggesting that they share the exact same office space. Separate units and everything, of course. Inappropriate arrangements can occur regardless of whether you're literally next door or a few miles away. Certainly not. But I don't see how them donating office space would cause any more of such confusion. The foundation doesn't care about the arbcom? That seems...really wrong. What do you mean by that? You'd prefer for Jimbo to resign from one or the other organization? If so, yeah, that'd be a good start. Combined with Michael's resignation and removal of Wikia from the interwiki link table (or at least from the special nofollow treatment), and then maybe a statement that there are no relationships between Wikia and the WMF could be taken seriously (I don't know for sure, but maybe). But as of now, it's just not a serious statement. It seems you were confused as to what I was suggesting, though. If it was just two offices next door to each other, would it be OK? I think it would be, but maybe you're right that it wouldn't.

Anthony wrote: They are welcome as sponsors I prefer that Sue chooses the office space she thinks is the best for our needs, and feel free to move to another as soon as she thinks it is necessary. No ties is much better. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say Anthony. If one staff member of Microsoft was also a volunteer on the arbcom, would it tie us to Microsoft somehow ? No overlap at the organization level. Jimbo is *very* careful to avoid any conflict of interest, and abstain from voting or even giving opinion each time there might be one. It would be a very bad idea for Jimbo to quit any of the two organizations :-) /me shakes head What you suggested was not two offices next to each other, but them donating office space to us.

Who's "we"?

Florence Devouard wrote: Other advisory board members play a leadership role in their own organisations. This does not imply any special connections with those other organisations. The arbcom is an en-wikipedia structure not a WMF one. Ec

Anthony wrote: The issue is not one of offering, but of accepting. Whether such an offer is made is entirely within Wikia's control; whether it's accepted is entirely within WMF's control. It's important to maintain an arms length with the for profit company. Potential liabilities or conflicts of interest ned to be avoided. But only in the very short term while WMF is trying to establish itself in a new city. We need to look further than that. Ec

On 9/22/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Your scenario is fairly unlikely though. The US dollar is dropping against other major currencies (just yesterday it became as worthless as the Canadian dollar) because of the fear of inflation. Inflation is going to tend to cause donations made in US dollars to increase, all other things being equal. The US stock market (S&P 500), as measured in US dollars, is near an all-time high. If donations made in US dollars remain flat you guys have some serious fundraising problems. Or switching all donations and liquid assets to e-gold. If you really think the foundation should make decisions based on speculation as to the state of the US dollar, it should start buying gold bars.

On 9/22/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Hydrogen...lighter and more apt to cause a disaster.

I take it all back, then. ;)

phoebe ayers wrote: Thanks! Being less physically isolated from grassroots Wikimedians is indeed one of the benefits of moving to a larger city. We'll see you there! :) -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)