Dan Grey wrote:
On 27/08/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
Well, it has been staying on the agenda for a
lonnnnng time. And
discussed many times on the mailing list (wikinews), with some editors
contacting us so that the issue be fixed. Hence it being listed.
Yes, the license has been discussed on and off for the entire lifetime
of the project, usually just the same arguments being rehashed over
and over. I've also noticed that fewer and fewer people are involved
in each round, probably because rarely anything ever comes of the
There's a slight difference about us discussing amongst ourselves and
the board talking about it though. The latter *might* result in some
sort of action being taken, so in this instance the participation of
the people who actually create what will be licensed might be a good
This is the reason why this meeting is open to everyone.
I tend to think the idea is not even to make the decision of which
license to choose during the meeting, because I see no reason why a
selection of people would make such a decision over all editors. But
rather to find a solution to make it so that such a decision is finally
Recently, on the french wikinews, someone even try to change the charter
to indicate that all content on wikinews was public domain and its
content forbidden to use for commercial reasons (?!?)
I think it is HIGH time that things are settled down.
If you feel it
would be a very very very bad idea to discuss it today as
you would prefer that wikinewsies be warned sooner, please say it so. I
guess we can find enough topics of discussion to fill up 2 hours. Open
also means people should feel free to report a major issue to be discussed.
Discuss it by all means - just please don't make any decisions.
Something along the lines of "if the community comes to a decision,
we'll ratify it" might be good :-).
I spent two hours this morning trying to clarify
many pages on meta.
Please see the starting page
. I would love that
this page is completed little by little to give a good overview of the
Foundation in less than 32 ko.
Could anyone help making the paragraphs about "where do we spent money"
and "how do we get money" give a good overview to any visitors, plus
links for deeper investigation ?
Several pages have also been clarified. Such as the official positions
and organigram ones.
I would also invite editors to comment on a draft of a role, the press
officer one, which is currently in french (I'll try to translate it
soon). I wrote it thinking of the french association press contact, but
I think it could enhance the description of Elian's role quite a bit.
This is great, I'm glad people haven't given up on this :-)
Do I look like someone giving up on such things ? :-)
as Elian said, it would best if most of this was on
the WMF wiki, not
I disagree. It is not best that this is on WMF simply because very few
people edit WMF. When this page has reach a good state, it could be
copied over there. But right now, we are very far from it. It has more
chance to become a good page on meta, because they are more editors
likely to work on it. So let's not try to hurry and do something of poor
quality. WMF site will wait till the page is good. If we transfer
entirely the page over there, it will never be good.
Two places covering the same stuff isn't great - they often
start saying slightly different things over time, and
then that raises
the question of which is authoritative. There's only a few bits that
need to be editable by just anyone, and therefore remain on meta.