Prishtina Hosts Second International Conference on Software Freedom For the second year running the Kosovar Association for Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSSK) and the University of Prishtina are organizing a conference dedicated to free software - Software Freedom Kosova Conference 2010.
This conference follows upon the success of SFK09 held in August last year attended by more than 500 participants and over 40 national and international speakers and professionals.
SFK10 will take place on 25 and 26 September starting at 9:00 in the venues of the Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering of the University of Prishtina. This year the conference will host several notable hacker keynotes.
Leon Shiman will speak on the use of FLOSS in public administration; Rob Savoy of Gnash project will talk about network protocols; Mikel Maron will speak on the geopolitical use of open maps and Peter Salus, historian of operating systems, will lecture on the history of development of GNU/Linux.
Overall, over 20 topics will be discussed, ranging from issues associated with the Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, intellectual property licenses, building of communities, OpenStreetMap, Sugar, and many other topics in the field of free software.
Topics to be discussed and the quality of lecturers, along with the success of last year's conference make SFK10 the largest conference of its kind in Southeast Europe.
The conference is held under the auspices of the Office of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo and is supported by a number of donors from whom it is worth mentioning: the Ministry of Energy and Mining, Mozilla, Rrota, PC World Albanian and the University of Prishtina Student Center.
The conference is free to participants during the two days. The presentations and detailed information on the conference can be found at www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org
------ For Immediate Release FLOSS Kosova info@flossk.org
On Sep 22, 3:04 pm, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com" jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
here is a rough translation of the press release : Pristina is the conference host software ***On 25 and 26 September Pristina will be hosted for the second time Freedom Conference Software Kosovo.*** *FLOSS SFK10 Kosovo, organized by
the
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering (FIEK) of the University of Pristina.*
SFK09 held last year was attended by about 500 people who attended about
40
lectures of 25 lecturers. This time the conference will be focused: the 24 lectures will be from Kosovo, region and world.
The main and guest lecturers at the same time honor of this conference
are
renowned as hackers Leon Shiman, Rob Savoye, Mikel Maro and Peter Salus.Shiman's Foundation board member who oversees the development of graphical system for Linux and BSD - x.org, and the owner of Shiman Associates consulting firm. Savoye is the primary developer of Gnash as previously developed for Debian, Red Hat and Yahoo. Savoye has been programming since 1977. Maron specializes in programming applications based on geography and location. Maron is OpenStreeMap Foundation board member, a service
similar
to Google Maps. Salus is a linguist, computer scientist and historian of technology. He worked a professor and dean at several universities. But
this
is only the result of the work of the organizing committee which is preparing the conference program for almost a year .
Other topics will provide for all the little: Milot Shala will directly demonstrate the Qt Framework development of Nokia's, Martin will tell Bekkelund Norwegian practices with open source code (open source) in state administration, Baki Goxhaj will talk about WordPress, Marco Fioretti will show how programming languages can be used in schools. Other topics are Wikipedia, CAD, use of EU's funds in Open Source, Sugar platform for children, CMS systems for universities, Android platform, etc..
The conference will be held on the premises of FIEK-regulation. Free Registration begins on Saturday at 9:00 pm and during the two days program starts at 10:00. The conference is supported financially by the Office of the Prime Minister, Wheel, PC World and New OpenWorld.al.
For more visit the official website of Kosovo Organization free software
and
open - FLOSS Kosovo http://kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/ . */ telegraph /*
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Luca Paolo Pescatore <
multiva...@gmail.com
wrote: Ehm.... great... should I send to TechCrunch and other EN/US websites in Albanian ? :)
Is it possible to have a PR in English ?
Luca
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Bernard Writes :
The attached notice has been published today in Gazeta Express and I
have
sent it to: Telegrafi, Koha Ditore and RTKlive.com. You can use this to
send
to other media and maybe invite them to come. Also Arianit has written
a
similar text that we can also use...( http://arianit2.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/kete-vikend-prishtina-behet-... )
As I said yesterday, it would be good if somebody knows people in the media and talks to them to come.
-- Group homepage:http://groups.google.com/group/foss-al?hl=en Send messages to: foss-al@googlegroups.com Unsubscribe: foss-al+unsubscribe@googlegroups.comfoss-al%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<foss-al%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.comfoss-al%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- Group homepage:http://groups.google.com/group/foss-al?hl=en Send messages to: foss-al@googlegroups.com Unsubscribe: foss-al+unsubscribe@googlegroups.comfoss-al%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<foss-al%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.comfoss-al%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FLOSSK" group. To post to this group, send email to free-software-conference@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to free-software-conference+unsubscribe@googlegroups.comfree-software-conference%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/free-software-conference?hl=en.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:55:39PM +0200, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Overall, over 20 topics will be discussed, ranging from issues associated with the Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia,
Guess who got shanghaid! :-)
read you soon, Kim Bruning
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:55:39PM +0200, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote: <snip sfk2010 press release>
Question: People are interested in- and asking me about- how to found a wikimedia chapter in Kosovo. I'm not an expert on setting up a chapter.
Who are the experts on this?
sincerely, Kim Bruning
Look here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide and here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ.
-- Leinad
2010/9/26 Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:55:39PM +0200, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
<snip sfk2010 press release>
Question: People are interested in- and asking me about- how to found a wikimedia chapter in Kosovo. I'm not an expert on setting up a chapter.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
Look here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide and here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ.
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 06:29:42PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
Look here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide and here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ.
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
Sounds logical to me.
Effeietsanders suggested that the flossk people might do some WMF-like work for a while first. OTOH, flossk is already doing a lot of things (running a wikia, doing article drives, ...dragging wikimedians to kosovo ;-) ... )
<scratches head>
I'm going to be keeping in touch and I'll show them the FAQ
sincerly, Kim bruning
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:29 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad danny.leinad@gmail.com wrote:
Look here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide and here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ.
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a non-voting board member of WM RS, I am highly doubtful of such a confirmation.
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:09, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:29 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad danny.leinad@gmail.com
wrote:
Look here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a non-voting board member of WM RS, I am highly doubtful of such a confirmation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
lets first await how things develop, whether there are enough people being involved, if a chapter is actually the most useful format for their activities in the first place - before we are going to get into the whole political question of whether Kosovo is a seperate jurisdiction or not and what WMRS' role would be in that.
Lodewijk
2010/9/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:09, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:29 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad <danny.leinad@gmail.com
wrote:
Look here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a non-voting board member of WM RS, I am highly doubtful of such a confirmation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, So you want them to first organise things with the understanding that they will not be accepted as a chapter? In the language committee we have the grace to first decide on eligibility and then decide if all the requirements are met.
Yes I understand your reasoning but it means either that you do not expect them to get to the stage of realisation or think that it is expedient not to do discuss it at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:42, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
lets first await how things develop, whether there are enough people being involved, if a chapter is actually the most useful format for their activities in the first place - before we are going to get into the whole political question of whether Kosovo is a seperate jurisdiction or not and what WMRS' role would be in that.
Lodewijk
2010/9/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:09, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:29 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad <
danny.leinad@gmail.com
wrote:
Look here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea
to
convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a non-voting board member of WM RS, I am highly doubtful of such a confirmation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ehm, you probably misunderstood me. I did not try to say that they will not be accepted, I tried exactly to avoid saying things like that. I think we cannot make any decision on that - and that the question is more complicated than it is put now. Chapcom has not been invented for academic matters, but for actual applications. Therefore, imho, it is better to first examine what you want to do, get started with what you dont need a chapter status for anyway, and grow the community that way. Get to know each other, and see if you need a chapter status - based on what you are planning and doing (and whether you could just work with the existing structures within and outside Wikimedia). Once you have enough people, and you are of the opinion you need such status, you are of course free to request it. Before that moment, I think it is not very useful to get into theoretical what-if discussions about who should be asked etc.
Best,
Lodewijk
2010/9/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, So you want them to first organise things with the understanding that they will not be accepted as a chapter? In the language committee we have the grace to first decide on eligibility and then decide if all the requirements are met.
Yes I understand your reasoning but it means either that you do not expect them to get to the stage of realisation or think that it is expedient not to do discuss it at this time. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:42, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
lets first await how things develop, whether there are enough people
being
involved, if a chapter is actually the most useful format for their activities in the first place - before we are going to get into the whole political question of whether Kosovo is a seperate jurisdiction or not
and
what WMRS' role would be in that.
Lodewijk
2010/9/27 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the
set
up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction
means
that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New
York
have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as
strong
if not stronger. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 11:09, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 18:29 +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 14:58, Daniel ~ Leinad <
danny.leinad@gmail.com
wrote:
Look here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea
to
convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a non-voting board member of WM RS, I am highly doubtful of such a confirmation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger.
In fact, they are better organized than Wikimedia Serbia, which is partially my fault.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:06, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger.
In fact, they are better organized than Wikimedia Serbia, which is partially my fault.
And, in fact, they are the reason why I want Kosovo in Serbia ;) Their organization is strong and their potentials are stronger.
On 27 September 2010 10:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set up of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving them a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong if not stronger.
I don't think we can avoid political considerations. Either we consider Kosovo independant, in which case it can have a chapter without the approval of the Serbian chapter, or we consider it part of Serbia, in which case they are proposing the creation of a sub-national chapter within the jurisdiction of an existing chapter and the Chapters Agreement between the WMF and WMRS gives WMRS at least the right to be consulted if not veto power (when WMUK was negotiating our chapters agreement, we got it changed from consultation to consent, I don't know what WMRS's agreement says).
If WMRS gives consent, then it doesn't really matter (although, my standing objection to sub-national chapters could apply, but at the moment we do allow them so we should do so consistantly). If WMRS refuses to give consent (even if their agreement only gives them the right to be consulted, I would advise against consulting them and then disregarding their views) then we need to actually decide where we fall on the whole Kosovan independance issue. I, for one, don't want to decide where I fall on that issue, but I would be inclined to say that we should go with UN membership as the final arbiter of country status (and Kosovo is not yet a UN member). UN membership is not a perfect arbiter, but it is simple and far more neutral than any other option I can think of.
If the Kosovans are willing to wait, it would be make our lives much easier if we wait until the international community makes up their minds, but that could take a while (it's been 2.5 years already).
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 19:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If the Kosovans are willing to wait, it would be make our lives much easier if we wait until the international community makes up their minds, but that could take a while (it's been 2.5 years already).
I started to analyze the situation, but I've realized that the conclusion is the same as Tomas' one, while worded from another angle: there is no definite conclusion and presently all of them include possibilities for making harm to one of the sides, including WMF.
The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we should think how to solve that problem.
And we have tools to do that. Let's call them to internal-l (for example, to ask FLOSSK, as any WM chapter to delegate five members to the internal-l and chapters-l), let's treat their events as friendly ones (I was in Pristina, Gerard and Siebrand have already been at their event in Albania -- yes, free software and free knowledge activists from Kosovo are responsible for organizing those events in Albania -- but without WMF's official support), let's give to a couple of them scholarships for the next Wikimanias, etc.
BTW, political connotation in such cases could be avoided if WMF is extensively recognizing sub-national chapters. However, it is not the case. The product is that just well organized Catalan group is able to follow current trends inside of the Wikimedia movement. I can imagine how many obstacles have many other Wikimedian groups all over the world. And we need to find a temporary solution for such cases.
Unlike in the case of Kosovo, which has some chances to become a UN member in the future, probably hundreds of other groups would have to be permanently content with the "temporary solution". In some of the cases even willingness of ChapCom to recognize sub-national or cross-national chapters won't help.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 19:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If the Kosovans are willing to wait, it would be make our lives much easier if we wait until the international community makes up their minds, but that could take a while (it's been 2.5 years already).
I started to analyze the situation, but I've realized that the conclusion is the same as Tomas' one, while worded from another angle: there is no definite conclusion and presently all of them include possibilities for making harm to one of the sides, including WMF.
The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we should think how to solve that problem.
And we have tools to do that. Let's call them to internal-l (for example, to ask FLOSSK, as any WM chapter to delegate five members to the internal-l and chapters-l), let's treat their events as friendly ones (I was in Pristina, Gerard and Siebrand have already been at their event in Albania -- yes, free software and free knowledge activists from Kosovo
are responsible for organizing those events in Albania -- but without WMF's official support), let's give to a couple of them scholarships for the next Wikimanias, etc.
Alot of the work and cost of organizing Albania fell upon me personally,
and I am from USA helping with kosovo and albania. It would be great to get some financial help for albania, and we can also finance the effort via wikimedia albania, what do you think?
BTW, political connotation in such cases could be avoided if WMF is extensively recognizing sub-national chapters. However, it is not the case. The product is that just well organized Catalan group is able to follow current trends inside of the Wikimedia movement. I can imagine how many obstacles have many other Wikimedian groups all over the world. And we need to find a temporary solution for such cases.
Unlike in the case of Kosovo, which has some chances to become a UN member in the future, probably hundreds of other groups would have to be permanently content with the "temporary solution". In some of the cases even willingness of ChapCom to recognize sub-national or cross-national chapters won't help.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 27 September 2010 20:36, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we should think how to solve that problem.
And we have tools to do that. Let's call them to internal-l (for example, to ask FLOSSK, as any WM chapter to delegate five members to the internal-l and chapters-l), let's treat their events as friendly ones (I was in Pristina, Gerard and Siebrand have already been at their event in Albania -- yes, free software and free knowledge activists from Kosovo are responsible for organizing those events in Albania -- but without WMF's official support), let's give to a couple of them scholarships for the next Wikimanias, etc.
So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai group) and then "upgrade" them to chapter status at a later date if/when it is less contentious to do so? That could work.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai group) and then "upgrade" them to chapter status at a later date if/when it is less contentious to do so? That could work.
If that means full integration [without just official chapter status], then yes. I would give to the both groups right to vote for chapters elected Board seats, too. This is especially true for the Kansai group, which would have more members than some chapters; while FLOSSK's free knowledge group has members as any smaller chapter has.
Hi, slightly off-topic, but for those who wonder what is "Kansai group", I'd love to give some clues as its members, as follows:
meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WiKansai (mostly written in Japanese but some English description) own wiki: http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
For information of [[Kansai]] region may be found on your favorite Wikipedia. Having over 3.5 millions' population, Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe are situated - rich of both historical and modern elements including active FLOSS vibes.
We at Wikimedians in Kansai are no legal body and currently consist in only five people, so don't fall into the category of aspirant chapters - a legal body with over 25 supporter. It might be no big deal to gather such other 20 people, but we decided to take actions before satisfying formal requirements. At least at this moment it goes quite smoothly.
I agree with Milos on that would be a way for Kosovan people. Again, I'd repeat at least it works well for us very much and we would not be the last people in such a situation.
Cheers,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai group) and then "upgrade" them to chapter status at a later date if/when it is less contentious to do so? That could work.
If that means full integration [without just official chapter status], then yes. I would give to the both groups right to vote for chapters elected Board seats, too. This is especially true for the Kansai group, which would have more members than some chapters; while FLOSSK's free knowledge group has members as any smaller chapter has.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument. It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is administratively a separate area. it has its own issues.. Thanks, GerardM
On 27 September 2010 19:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 10:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I doubt very much that political considerations should be part of the set
up
of a chapter. Asking the Serbian chapter for an opinion is fine. Giving
them
a vote on this is not. Given that Kosovo is a separate jurisdiction means that it fulfils the basic requirement. Given that Hong Kong and New York have chapters the case for Kosovo to have a chapter is at least as strong
if
not stronger.
I don't think we can avoid political considerations. Either we consider Kosovo independant, in which case it can have a chapter without the approval of the Serbian chapter, or we consider it part of Serbia, in which case they are proposing the creation of a sub-national chapter within the jurisdiction of an existing chapter and the Chapters Agreement between the WMF and WMRS gives WMRS at least the right to be consulted if not veto power (when WMUK was negotiating our chapters agreement, we got it changed from consultation to consent, I don't know what WMRS's agreement says).
If WMRS gives consent, then it doesn't really matter (although, my standing objection to sub-national chapters could apply, but at the moment we do allow them so we should do so consistantly). If WMRS refuses to give consent (even if their agreement only gives them the right to be consulted, I would advise against consulting them and then disregarding their views) then we need to actually decide where we fall on the whole Kosovan independance issue. I, for one, don't want to decide where I fall on that issue, but I would be inclined to say that we should go with UN membership as the final arbiter of country status (and Kosovo is not yet a UN member). UN membership is not a perfect arbiter, but it is simple and far more neutral than any other option I can think of.
If the Kosovans are willing to wait, it would be make our lives much easier if we wait until the international community makes up their minds, but that could take a while (it's been 2.5 years already).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument. It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
The Serbian chapter agreement says it covers all of Serbia. We need to know what "all of Serbia" means in order to interpret that agreement. There are three ways we could have two chapters:
1) Two national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be independant. 2) Two sub-national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be two (non-overlapping) parts of the same country. 3) A national chapter covering all of Serbia, which we consider to include Kosovo, and a sub-national chapter covering just Kosovo overlapping with the national chapter.
There are some important technical differences between those arrangements (eg. the third option has all the same issues as have been brought up regarding a Catalan chapter overlapping with a Spanish chapter). It would be great if we could just ignore technicalities, but it is inadvisable. If you just ignore issues that you don't want to resolve, sooner or later you come to regret that decision.
We also can't ignore the harm that could be caused by being seen to take sides in the dispute.
Hoi, You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia.
When you assume that the contract with chapters can be interpreted in a way that allows for the "final solution" of geo political issues, issues that have led to war, I would call it silly. If the contract is to be understood to bind the WMF in this way, I would urgently ask the WMF to reconsider this contract. Thanks, GerardM
On 29 September 2010 18:07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an
argument.
It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
The Serbian chapter agreement says it covers all of Serbia. We need to know what "all of Serbia" means in order to interpret that agreement. There are three ways we could have two chapters:
- Two national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be independant.
- Two sub-national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be two
(non-overlapping) parts of the same country. 3) A national chapter covering all of Serbia, which we consider to include Kosovo, and a sub-national chapter covering just Kosovo overlapping with the national chapter.
There are some important technical differences between those arrangements (eg. the third option has all the same issues as have been brought up regarding a Catalan chapter overlapping with a Spanish chapter). It would be great if we could just ignore technicalities, but it is inadvisable. If you just ignore issues that you don't want to resolve, sooner or later you come to regret that decision.
We also can't ignore the harm that could be caused by being seen to take sides in the dispute.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29 September 2010 12:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia.
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
Also, you may want to brush up on what chapters do. We don't really provide support to the WMF. We provide support to the Wikimedia movement generally, but we rarely do anything to specifically support the WMF (the WMF supports us quite a lot, eg. through the grants process).
When you assume that the contract with chapters can be interpreted in a way that allows for the "final solution" of geo political issues, issues that have led to war, I would call it silly. If the contract is to be understood to bind the WMF in this way, I would urgently ask the WMF to reconsider this contract.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What does "allows for the final solution of geo political issues" mean?
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in that region.
Nathan
On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in that region.
I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in that region.
I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me.
Ah, I just that that when you wrote "very real risks" you had some in mind. Thanks for clarifying.
~Nathan
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in that region.
I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me.
Ah, I just that that when you wrote "very real risks" you had some in mind. Thanks for clarifying.
~Nathan
*thought that, excuse the error
On 30 September 2010 20:31, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status: U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in that region.
I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be. Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know what the consequences will be seems like a very bad idea to me.
Ah, I just that that when you wrote "very real risks" you had some in mind. Thanks for clarifying.
I have lots in mind (I'm sure you can think of lots too if you try). It's the severity of them that I don't have enough information to judge.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
As a voting member of ChapCom, I can say that we wouldn't leave the decision to Wikimedia Serbia.
It's a complicated issue, just as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and New York City were. It deserves reasoned discussion and a rational decision based on the practical reality.
I'm neither pledging support for nor opposing a Kosovar chapter—I'm simply stating, for the record, that we'll take any application on its own merits.
Austin
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org