see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the
commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the
owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into
what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most
digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is
missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of
photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.
For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the
widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user
only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to
come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states
that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work
(which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the
Secretary of State.
The Act also fails to prohibit sub-licensing, meaning that once
somebody has your work, they can wholesale it. This gives the green
light to a new content-scraping industry, an industry that doesn't
have to pay the originator a penny. Such is the consequence of
"rebalancing copyright", in reality.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org> wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> For what it's worth, this didn't get sent out to everyone. I was a
> bureaucrat and administrator, and have the most edits on that wiki
> (afaik?), and wasn't notified. Like Huib, I was also in the batch of
> blog moderator removals and wasn't notified about that either.
>
> I'm not very active anymore, so it's not really a huge deal, but it's
> still bad form to have not gotten any kind of notification at all.
>
>
I'm going to have to agree with Casey on this. I
also received absolutely zero notification or warning as a longtime
bureaucrat and administrator that my rights were to be removed on WMF wiki
or the foundation's blog.
We should have been reached out to directly and have been informed of this
decision. Even if there was little about it that we could change.
Alex
This is a question that came up on the Wikimedia India list, and I
suspect the question (and potential solutions) are of interest to
several others in our community, esp. from places with shorter copyright
terms than the US.
Cheers,
Achal
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Wikimedia Servers and Copyright Issues
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 14:51:27 +0530
From: Achal Prabhala <aprabhala(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi Balasankar,
The question you raise is a very important one. The solution, however,
is not likely to be to host content in India (I don't speak for the
Wikimedia Foundation, but there are sound legal reasons why all
Wikimedia content is hosted in the US; mostly liability risk and freedom
of expression and this is unlikely to change).
The default across Commons and Wikisource, the two projects that host
the bulk of public domain content (images, videos, sounds, books) in
Wikimedia, is the US copyright term - it's the only yardstick that
matters for what qualifies as public domain by virtue of being out of
copyright. You are absolutely right, however, in that there's a big
difference btw US copyright terms and those of other countries, for
instance:
For photographs, while the binding limit (Berne/TRIPs) is 25 years from
the making of the work, India is life of photographer + 60 years after
death, and in the US it is life + 70.
For literary works, the binding limit (Berne/ TRIPs) is life + 50 years,
whereas in India it is life + 60, whereas in the US it is life + 70 or
120/95 if made on work for hire.
(The binding limit is the WTO mandated term that country members - US
and India and 150 others - have to follow. As you can see, typically,
most countries exceed the limit for reasons of their own, which they are
allowed to do, with the US exceeding in far greater amount than India.)
In short, there can be a difference of between 10 and 40 years between
the time a work goes into the public domain in a country with shorter
terms than the US (any number of countries in the non-Anglo-European
world) and the US. This seriously affects even 'Indian' works (where
India is the first country of publication) because of the copyright
protection granted to such works in the US, thus effectively placing
them under copyright for our purposes within Wikimedia long after
they've gone in to the public domain in their source country.
The case to consider here is Golan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder
A summary of the US Supreme Court decision in this case is - US law
trumps international agreements, so the US copyright term holds within
US territory, and restores copyright protection to any works that have
gone into the public domain by virtue of a shorter copyright term in
another country. Because Wikimedia servers are based in the US, Golan
applies to us.
But your question is an extremely pertinent one, and if we were to find
unusual solutions to it, they would seem to lie in:
1) Whether hosting on US servers for a global audience makes any
difference, since we do not serve readers only bound by US law
(Wikimedia reader numbers bear this out, ie US readership = minority
percentage of whole) and whether we specifically have anything special
on the basis of which to mount some kind of strategic litigation on the
issue of allowing us to exploit the shortest possible route to public
domain anywhere in the world for all or some of our readers.
2) Whether hosting on US servers but using publicly audited geolocation
to switch off for readers from IP addresses where the material in
question is still under copyright is a legally and operationally
feasible workaround (connected to whether Wikimedia Tech thinks this is
both doable and worth our while to do)
3) Whether, if all fails and there is no getting around this in any way,
Commons and Wikisource (if there is sufficient interest in those
communities) should be interested in looking at a way of allowing
external links to chapter-managed local sites from the US-served base to
see the material in question; and if this is something, say, the India
chapter wants and is willing to do, whether this route poses any legal
risks.
In any case, I passed around your question to a few friends for comments
and suggestions - as well as to Geoff Brigham at the Wikimedia
Foundation, who is not too hopeful for a solution but is very receptive
to looking into it and getting back to us - and I'll tell you when I
know something.
Meanwhile, if you have other ways of looking into creative solutions
around this problem (not at all easy to crack, but the benefits are
significant) - or if anyone else on this list does - you should.
Cheers,
Achal
On Friday 10 May 2013 10:20 PM, Balasankar Chelamattath wrote:
> Hi Srikanth,
> I didnt quite understand what you meant by example.
> An example for a work which is in public domain in India and not in US
> - Works by Changampuzha Krishnapillai (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changampuzha_Krishna_Pillai ).
> He passed away in 1948, and hence it is 65 years after the author's
> death. So the books are copyright-free in India as of now (in pubic
> domain).
> But they
>
> 1. were not published before 1923
> 2. were not in the public domain in India as of 1 January 1996 (
> because criteria of "60 years after author's death" not satisfied
> on 1996)
>
> Hence they are not in public domain according to US Laws. So we cannot
> store them in US servers.
>
> The main problem is India considers copyright based on date of
> author's death and US does it based on date of publication.
>
> Regards,
> Balasankar C
>
>
>
> 2013/5/10 Srikanth Ramakrishnan <srik.ramk(a)wikimedia.in
> <mailto:srik.ramk@wikimedia.in>>
>
> Hi Balasankar,
> Can you point out specific instances and show when and where the
> book or publication was first published? If the works are still
> copyrighted in India, then they should be copyrighted in the US as
> well, generally speaking. The term India awards to creators is
> lesser than the one provided in the US under copyright laws.
> Regards,
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Balasankar Chelamattath
> <c.balasankar(a)gmail.com <mailto:c.balasankar@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> As most of you know, the Indian copyright law says that a book
> gets relieved of copyright after 60 years from the author's
> death. But this is not the case with US Law. As given here
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Copyrightterm.pdf>
> , of all the works published outside US, only those published
> before 1923 are directly in the public domain. The ones
> published between 1923 and 1977 without compliance to the US
> formalities will be in the public domain only if they are in
> the public domain in their source country as of 1 January
> 1996. Almost all the other categories of published works will
> not be in the public domain until 95 years after publishing.
>
> This induces a confusion and when looked in a legal
> perspective, most of the books in Indian Wikisources, are
> still not in public domain and hence must be removed. This
> makes a huge negative impact on the hard work done by
> contributors. Their contributions are wasted which may cause
> them to stop contributing. In short, this may be a negative
> impact on Wikimedia's image in the society.
>
> The only solution to this problem is to *host the servers of
> Indian Wikimedia services in India*, so that the data we
> upload is stored under Indian Laws. Can Wikimedia India
> Chapter do anything on this? We can plan and conduct a
> fundraiser in India to raise money for the hosting expenses.
>
> Please consider this issue with maximum priority as it
> involves legal procedures and related headaches.
>
> Regards,
> Balasankar C
> https://ml.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Balasankarc
> Regards,
> Balasankar C
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences
> visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Srikanth Ramakrishnan
> Treasurer,
> Wikimedia Chapter [India]
>
> Donate to the Wikimedia India Chapter today
> <http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Donations>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visithttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
It doesn't sound like a smart decision to me. From my own experience I know that many office people in the Wikimedia movement do a great job, but are terrible in maintaining a wiki. While volunteers are mostly good at this because of their experience.
Why removing the tools that experienced people are good in using them if needed?
The signal this give the the community is: "fuck off, we know better". I really hope the office doesn't actually want to give that signal but want to work alongside with the community.
Please think things through...
Romaine
> Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 21:15:02 +1000
> From: "K. Peachey" <p858snake(a)gmail.com>
> To: tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net,
> Wikimedia Mailing List
> <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki
> at least)
> Message-ID:
>
> <CADnECnX4O9Ma=uhVEmCVmBEhgVJ8HA4n-to_vKxSc+wDkSzSFg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At
> this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that
> administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having
> administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled,
> effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited
> the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent
> responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first,
> When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is
> that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the
> community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how
> userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're
> distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?,
> although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community?
> Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards?
> just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately
> strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else
> that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_st…>
> [2]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&t…>
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
I just want to highlight Nathan's excellent and reasonable point:
The WMF could work on: "manag[ing] the implementation of a change that
affects dedicated volunteers. An advanced notice, an explanation, a thank
you, an expression of hope that volunteers will continue to help. That's all
it would have taken to preserve this as what it ought to have been, a
non-issue."
There's a lot of adversarial dynamics between the Foundation and the
Community. A little bit of courtesy and civility and thoughtfulness would
go a long way towards avoiding antagonism.
Wikipedians are mission-driven and autonomy-craving. Work with us on that,
respect it, use it to your advantage.
There are pain points in transition, some of them unavoidable, but WMF
should still seek to minimize harm and improve mutual understanding at each
step. Otherwise, we get situations that take far more energy than a simple
explanation and expression of appreciation from the outset would have taken.
To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes: "It takes less *time *to *do* a
thing *right*, than it does to explain why you did it *wrong." Easier said
than done, but a worthy goal nonetheless.*
Jake (Ocaasi)
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse the brevity and typos.
On May 11, 2013 4:36 PM, "MZMcBride" <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
> Deryck Chan wrote:
> >Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> >by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
> >Go back to meta.
>
> Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
>
> * Blog access has been restricted (as noted).
> * Bugzilla adminship has been restricted to staff only.
> * wikimediafoundation.org adminship is now restricted to staff and Board
> Members.
> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
> sysadmins).
Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
not political.
>
> Relatedly, the Toolserver is being slowly killed in favor of a controlled
> sandbox called "Wikimedia Labs" and all Wikimedia accounts are being
> unified (with forceable usurps/renames) to make it easier to track and
> control users across all Wikimedia wikis.
>
> It's very surprising that the Board has been so quiet about all of this.
> Generally, a few staff members (notably Philippe and his team) have tried
> to create "tiers" in which paid staff are above volunteers. Even the most
> trusted volunteers are no longer allowed to hold positions of trust within
> the Wikimedia community. This is very bad. Are there ways to address this?
>
> But to blame this on Gayle is kind of insane. It seems clear to me that
> she's being used as a pawn here. There are very few indications that this
> has anything to do with her, aside from a few log entries (from...
> Philippe) inexplicably pointing to her name. And the curt e-mail she sent
> out to affected users. Her involvement with the wiki would charitably be
> described as negligible.
>
> The director of _community advocacy_ (Philippe) is stripping nearly every
> community member of user rights. And yet there's still no provided
> rationale for the change in policy, other than it being based on a series
> of private discussions. Meanwhile, the home page of
> wikimediafoundation.org stresses how transparent the organization is.
>
> This is a pretty disappointing day. I'd be interested to hear what Gayle,
> Philippe, or the Board has to say.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
We are looking for new administrator-moderators for Wikimedia-l. Ryan
Lomonaco left the team a while ago, and I plan on stepping down as soon as
the new team is on board.
The main role of an administrator-moderator is to approve or deny posts
that get held up in the moderation queue (post made by non subscribers,
posts with attachments, posts to multiple addresses, posts sent by
moderated users, etc.). Occasionally an administrator-moderator has to step
in when a discussion gets out of hand. Even more rarely the role involves
basic list administration, such as helping users to subscribe or
unsubscribe manually from the list.
Anyone interested in joining the team should send an email to *
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org* no later than 23:59 UTC on the 10th
of May. Please include the following information:
- Wikimedia username
- Projects you are active on
- Any roles you serve on those projects (e.g. administrator, bureaucrat,
WikiProject coordinator, clerk, mediator, etc.)
- Any other information that may be pertinent to the role
Alex (User:AlexandrDmitri)
Hi all,
I think it should be noted that the Russian Wikipedia is having more and
more problems with the state-maintained Internet blacklist (an idea that
they heavily opposed, and which made them go on strike last July).
Apparently, the infamous "cannabis smoking" article was put back on the
said blacklist two days ago (May 6)[1] due to a decision of the Federal
Drug Control Service which doesn't like the current wording of the
article. The blacklist now includes fifteen (15) articles related to
drugs and suicide: thirteen (13) from the Russian, and two (2) from the
English Wikipedia[2].
This is the second time that the Russian Wikipedia is having trouble
with the blacklist in the past 30 days, something that has unfortunately
been missed over the DCRI controversy that occurred in the first days of
April.
<shameless promotion>
For those of you who haven't heard of this yet, I prepared a short
summary at <http://twkozlowski.net/roskomnadzor-strikes-back/>; the
previous episode of the "Wikipedia vs. Roskomnadzor" story is described
at <http://twkozlowski.net/wikipedia-censorship-attempts/>.
</shameless promotion>
I'm quite sure that it is a mere coincidence that the Russian and French
controversies occurred around the same time, but it's nevertheless a bit
worrying to have to watch our communities being forced to edit the
contents of articles to please the authorities & take them off blacklists.
== References ==
* [1]
<http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130507/181016379/Wikipedia-Cannabis-Article-Put-B…>
* [2] http://tiny.cc/e7urww
-- Tomasz
Hello, everyone.
0. Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian --
to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama,
and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0]. I
think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and
courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate
questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants
Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's
narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC
staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may
take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise
and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I
have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care
about.
1. Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed
of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at
a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after
that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time eligibility
was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and
the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly
formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before
the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant
requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK
has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a
fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day
before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF.
Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been
answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before
additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while
some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness
or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though
not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here
-- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!),
and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to
provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with
previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3]
and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages
and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with
specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have
_liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in
compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and
without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations),
that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that
the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but
rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management
capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size.
WMHK’s proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a
record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses
these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record --
including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and
more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside
the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think
confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think
"eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1
above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in
compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this
case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility
was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the
missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public
requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program
plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its
previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least
partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed
reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But
again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in
WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds for
recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter,
wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret
anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance
issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full
funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge the
proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the different
aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
2. I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that
merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_
that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing
information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out
ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading
the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have
dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close
information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff
can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public
staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this communication
did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does
mean lacking information was not the issue here.
3. Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a successful
FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities
that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the
Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process.
WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current
non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work,
assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta)
that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff or
_temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I can
assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE 2012
in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
4. Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is
not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those
which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're
at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different
grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the
Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_
Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow
_does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some
chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically
seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR
and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only be
given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate
way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary
full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and
_impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants Program
did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing plans,
and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my
assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask
questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I personally,
as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to
hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to have
the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's
preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve this,
given certain milestones.
5. Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC
recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points
of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public
discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much rather
celebrate successes. :)
Asaf
[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducatio…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Li…
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikim…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_ro…
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not…
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org