What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
John On 11/02/2013 14:03, wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:39 +0000 From: Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: CACti2rKAKugc3dnTC1k+xj+L8Dv9UGbiJyBUBFhS-gOuDtLUew@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is something I'm liaising on with the WMF. The original copy was put together jointly between WMF and WMUK and I'm keen that any revisions are accepted by both sides. I'm hopeful that we can get this fixed today. Thanks, Stevie On 9 February 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 February 2013 17:10, Chris Keatingchris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.org domains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK
It would be a good idea to update < http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/02/questions-and-answers-related-to-the-go...
ASAP (which I appreciate might mean Monday)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing
On Feb 11, 2013 4:37 PM, "John Byrne" john@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote:
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the
donation" or similar.
That's what I'm still not getting. Donations don't have terms...
On 11 February 2013 17:00, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2013 4:37 PM, "John Byrne" john@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote:
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
That's what I'm still not getting. Donations don't have terms...
That statement is trivially false, in general application as well.
- d.
I don't want to set the cat among the pigeons, but does this mean that WMUK can now support GibraltarpediA?
I perfectly understand that things are a bit more complicated when it comes to money and formal agreements, but after the wonderful success in Monmouth, it would be a shame if the excellent work going on in Gibraltar continued to be overshadowed by the controversies about conflicts of interest and ownership of QRpedia. I think WMUK could do quite a bit to be seen to be supportive, and I think recognition of the project from formal entities within the movement (such as chapters) can go a long way towards changing the "default narrative" (to pinch Stevie's phrase).
All that said, I'm very pleased to see that this has finally been resolved and (it seems) with a minimum of acrimony. Hopefully all those involved will be happy with what they have contributed to the Wikimedia movement and will continue their involvement with it for a long time to come. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: John Byrne john@bodkinprints.co.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 16:37 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
John On 11/02/2013 14:03, wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:39 +0000 From: Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: CACti2rKAKugc3dnTC1k+xj+L8Dv9UGbiJyBUBFhS-gOuDtLUew@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is something I'm liaising on with the WMF. The original copy was put together jointly between WMF and WMUK and I'm keen that any revisions are accepted by both sides. I'm hopeful that we can get this fixed today. Thanks, Stevie On 9 February 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 February 2013 17:10, Chris Keatingchris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.org domains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK
It would be a good idea to update < http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/02/questions-and-answers-related-to-the-go...
ASAP (which I appreciate might mean Monday)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia.
Beyond that, I believe it would also be extremely unwise for WMUK to offer such support.
Andreas
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I don't want to set the cat among the pigeons, but does this mean that WMUK can now support GibraltarpediA?
I perfectly understand that things are a bit more complicated when it comes to money and formal agreements, but after the wonderful success in Monmouth, it would be a shame if the excellent work going on in Gibraltar continued to be overshadowed by the controversies about conflicts of interest and ownership of QRpedia. I think WMUK could do quite a bit to be seen to be supportive, and I think recognition of the project from formal entities within the movement (such as chapters) can go a long way towards changing the "default narrative" (to pinch Stevie's phrase).
All that said, I'm very pleased to see that this has finally been resolved and (it seems) with a minimum of acrimony. Hopefully all those involved will be happy with what they have contributed to the Wikimedia movement and will continue their involvement with it for a long time to come.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* John Byrne john@bodkinprints.co.uk *To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Monday, 11 February 2013, 16:37 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
John On 11/02/2013 14:03, wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:39 +0000 From: Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list < wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: <CACti2rKAKugc3dnTC1k+xj+ L8Dv9UGbiJyBUBFhS-gOuDtLUew@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is something I'm liaising on with the WMF. The original copy was put together jointly between WMF and WMUK and I'm keen that any revisions are accepted by both sides. I'm hopeful that we can get this fixed today. Thanks, Stevie On 9 February 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 9 February 2013 17:10, Chris Keating<chris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and
qrwp.org
domains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK
It would be a good idea to update <
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/02/questions-and-answers-related-to-the-go...
ASAP (which I appreciate might mean Monday)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia.
What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?
On 12 February 2013 12:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia.
What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?
It is important to remember that Andreas is opposed to Wikipedia in general and to chapters doing anything.
("Assume good faith" does not mean "in the face of mountains of evidence and the subject's own words.")
- d.
Sometimes I wonder what happened, David. I recall you describing one of my posts to Foundation-l as the "post of the year" a couple of years ago:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/216365#216365
What I am opposed to is poor content, BLP violations, or Wikipedia being abused for commercial and political interests.
That applied then, and it applies now. I don't think the average Wikipedian would have that much of a problem with that.
Andreas
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 February 2013 12:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia.
What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?
It is important to remember that Andreas is opposed to Wikipedia in general and to chapters doing anything.
("Assume good faith" does not mean "in the face of mountains of evidence and the subject's own words.")
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Thomas,
I don't think there is much wrong with projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia at all. When I first heard about Monmouthpedia, I thought it was a great project.
Problems arose from –
1. the conflation of roles within the chapter, 2. the projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in the press, and 3. the use of the Wikipedia main page to increase project and customer visibility.
I see a PR, credibility and integrity problem for the Wikimedia movement if such projects are prominently sold by Wikimedia as marketing projects designed to increase tourism – because this means we are saying it is fine to leverage Wikipedia to boost local business.
Similarly, I don't think it is wise to leverage the main page to enhance such projects' visibility, or for Wikimedia UK to endorse any such use of the main page. Commercial interests should be kept at arm's length from WMF and the chapter, and from the Wikipedia identity.
I don't want to see the Wikipedia main page play host to all manner of hidden commercial interests, especially when the commercial background is not transparent to the average reader. In relation to the lack of transparency, there is also a potential legal problem here under EU legislation, as described in the Signpost a while back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_an...
In my view, Wikimedia should support such projects as outreach efforts, to get people involved in writing content, but not as marketing ploys.
In terms of content generation, and getting people involved in Wikipedia, these are good projects, and to that degree I support them.
Best, Andreas
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like Gibraltarpedia.
What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
My usual optimism can sometimes lead to disappointment, but I think I'd rather have it that way. Projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia have a huge potential for doing good work, and they need the community to support and engage with them to make sure they deliver that good work.
I am pleased to read Andreas' précis of the extent to which he would support projects, but it's worth fleshing out the positive side of engaging in such projects, either as volunteers or as a body:
1. There is an opportunity to create many new encyclopedic articles, not only in English but also in myriad other languages. 2. There is an opportunity to take and publish photographs of notable objects and people. 3. There is an opportunity to enthuse existing editors and recruit new editors, training them as we go along. 4. There is an opportunity to create networks to support more projects between interested groups who share our aims.
For example, Monmouthpedia generated many new articles in multiple languages as well as new photographs; the volunteers' efforts have helped vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts made are leading to a shift in attitude of the Welsh Government and academia towards free and open licensing of work that they create or are custodians of.
Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into North Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African wikimedians - perhaps even help to establish new communities of wikimedians where they do not yet exist.
Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest scrutiny and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the future and I'd welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet the vision of our wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are potentially the most valuable.
On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 15:56, rexx wrote:
For example, Monmouthpedia generated many new articles in multiple languages as well as new photographs; the volunteers' efforts have helped vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts made are leading to a shift in attitude of the Welsh Government and academia towards free and open licensing of work that they create or are custodians of.
Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into North Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African wikimedians - perhaps even help to establish new communities of wikimedians where they do not yet exist.
Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest scrutiny and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the future and I'd welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet the vision of our wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are potentially the most valuable.
Let's be fair here, it's not just Andreas' concerns. It's not just a concern for self-styled Wikipedia critics. Lots and lots of people thought that Gibraltarpedia was problematic, myself included.* I think it's a clear case of WMUK collectively not having a good intuitive grasp of what the community on-wiki will and won't tolerate from chapters or chapter board members.
It's not even about the rights and wrongs of what went on, it's about being able to make sane judgement calls about about whether one can get the community to buy-in to grand plans for outreach (whether clearly good things like working with GLAMs to more problematic things which skirt close to the edge of paid editing like the Gibraltar stuff). It's about realising that one has to think through the politics of these things and to have the cleanest possible hands in dealing with COI.
Despite negative press coverage, negative reaction on-wiki and a governance review, based on Rexx's email, I'm starting to think that nobody at WMUK has actually learned anything useful from the Gibraltarpedia affair. Which is a shame.
* See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:GL...
Well Tom, you have to remember that I write here as old Rexx, the dinosaur, wikimedian volunteer. I don't speak for the WMUK Board, and I sometimes wonder if I have to put a disclaimer on everything I write as a result. Would you prefer that? It sounds like just the sort of bureaucracy that will encourage others to stand as trustees in future.
I stand by my view that future projects will always have the potential to do great good for the movement, as well as do harm if things go wrong. The view that the Wikimedia community in the UK should be paralysed into inaction for fear of doing something wrong is simply untenable. I seriously hope that's not what you're suggesting.
Please feel free to tell us how you'd handle a future request for a new wiki-town. Even better, there's going to be a call for new trustees, both elected and coopted in the near future. WMUK could certainly do with having the benefit of your wisdom on the Board, and I'd vote for you.
On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 17:06, rexx wrote:
Please feel free to tell us how you'd handle a future request for a new wiki-town. Even better, there's going to be a call for new trustees, both elected and coopted in the near future. WMUK could certainly do with having the benefit of your wisdom on the Board, and I'd vote for you.
Serving on committees goes against my religious beliefs, but thanks for the statement of confidence. ;-)
On 12 February 2013 16:31, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Let's be fair here, it's not just Andreas' concerns. It's not just a concern for self-styled Wikipedia critics. Lots and lots of people thought that Gibraltarpedia was problematic, myself included.*
Indeed, I had a phone call from an old friend and Wikipedian. I had to explain my own personal attitude, that I never nominate anything I write for DYK. But it wasn't really an adequate response to the concern expressed about the use of the main page. Let me say that I supported the Monmouth effort by starting 10 articles, and I don't regret that work. But I wasn't in a hurry to get back into the water after I had the system clearer in my mind.
Charles
There's very little I can say that would add to Doug's articulate and well-thought-out post, but I welcome Andreas' more substantive post as a step towards a rational, mature discussion about these projects. I think such a discussion has been needed for a while, but hasn't been possible until now because of the entanglement with wider issues about conflicts of interest etc.
Andreas raises some points that are worth addressing. The conflation of roles within the chapter is not something I'm in a position to opine on, but "the projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives in the press" is a legitimate concern. Wikipedia must be neutral, and of course that neutrality extends beyond the text of a given article. Nevertheless, the increased visibility of, say, Monmouth is an effect of these projects and one reason that local governments may wish to see such projects in their areas. There's no getting away from that - local governments aren't motivated by altruism in the same way that Wikipedians are. As for the controversy at DYK, mistakes were made there. I think it was the result of naivety and the lack of clear process for this sort of thing at DYK and certainly not of any malice. Roger was just trying to see that people writing articles got some recognition, as he had done for years before Monmouth- or Gibraltarpedia were conceived. I think Roger's naivety wrt conflicts of interest and volumes of nominations at DYK, and DYK's processes, have both been rectified or are being rectified.
All that said, we need to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, Gibraltarpedia has its issues. No, those issues are not going to go away with the wave of a magic wand. But I've been to Gibraltar, and the number of people involved, and the enthusiasm with which the project is met by residents, cultural institutions, schools, and at least three different government departments tells me that something is being built that will outlive the politics surrounding the project, and it has real potential to make a positive change to the movement without compromising our movement's principles.
None of that is to say that Gibraltarpedia can carry on as though the events of the last few months never happened (see my first paragraph), but nor is it fatally flawed. It's also worth pointing out that almost everybody involved is involved as a volunteer and is contributing to the project and to Wikipedia out of altruism.
Thanks, Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 15:56 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
My usual optimism can sometimes lead to disappointment, but I think I'd rather have it that way. Projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia have a huge potential for doing good work, and they need the community to support and engage with them to make sure they deliver that good work.
I am pleased to read Andreas' précis of the extent to which he would support projects, but it's worth fleshing out the positive side of engaging in such projects, either as volunteers or as a body:
1. There is an opportunity to create many new encyclopedic articles, not only in English but also in myriad other languages. 2. There is an opportunity to take and publish photographs of notable objects and people. 3. There is an opportunity to enthuse existing editors and recruit new editors, training them as we go along. 4. There is an opportunity to create networks to support more projects between interested groups who share our aims.For example, Monmouthpedia generated many new articles in multiple languages as well as new photographs; the volunteers' efforts have helped vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts made are leading to a shift in attitude of the Welsh Government and academia towards free and open licensing of work that they create or are custodians of.
Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into North Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African wikimedians - perhaps even help to establish new communities of wikimedians where they do not yet exist.
Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest scrutiny and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the future and I'd welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet the vision of our wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are potentially the most valuable.
Harry Its not a coincidence that Chris's announcement mentions defining the relationship with Mpedia and Gpedia. I agree with you. We have dozens of activists and editors who should be lauded for their work. They have 750 new articles from Cadiz to Marrakesh (literally). The recent videos that have been published are a good advert and I see that Monmouth have published a new one too.
On 11 February 2013 17:41, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I don't want to set the cat among the pigeons, but does this mean that WMUK can now support GibraltarpediA?
I perfectly understand that things are a bit more complicated when it comes to money and formal agreements, but after the wonderful success in Monmouth, it would be a shame if the excellent work going on in Gibraltar continued to be overshadowed by the controversies about conflicts of interest and ownership of QRpedia. I think WMUK could do quite a bit to be seen to be supportive, and I think recognition of the project from formal entities within the movement (such as chapters) can go a long way towards changing the "default narrative" (to pinch Stevie's phrase).
All that said, I'm very pleased to see that this has finally been resolved and (it seems) with a minimum of acrimony. Hopefully all those involved will be happy with what they have contributed to the Wikimedia movement and will continue their involvement with it for a long time to come.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* John Byrne john@bodkinprints.co.uk *To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Monday, 11 February 2013, 16:37 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
John On 11/02/2013 14:03, wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:21:39 +0000 From: Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list < wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: <CACti2rKAKugc3dnTC1k+xj+ L8Dv9UGbiJyBUBFhS-gOuDtLUew@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is something I'm liaising on with the WMF. The original copy was put together jointly between WMF and WMUK and I'm keen that any revisions are accepted by both sides. I'm hopeful that we can get this fixed today. Thanks, Stevie On 9 February 2013 20:40, Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 9 February 2013 17:10, Chris Keating<chris.keating@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and
qrwp.org
domains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK
It would be a good idea to update <
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/02/questions-and-answers-related-to-the-go...
ASAP (which I appreciate might mean Monday)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 11 February 2013 16:37, John Byrne john@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote:
What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar.
A good line. And if the full unredacted text of the negotiations was published people would have more data to weigh its validity. Yes I know that isn't going to happen.
And since that isn't going to happen you are going to have to accept that people are going to look at what data we do have (particularly with regards to timing) and draw other rather different conclusions.
Equally those drawing those conclusions are going to have to accept that we are unlikely to receive even an acknowledgment of our position let alone a meaningful response. That being the case its best to accept that things worked out okey in the end and move on.
For example the next issue is how WMUK plans to pay for the upkeep of QRpedia given that it wasn't in the budget.
On Feb 11, 2013 7:59 PM, "geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote:
For example the next issue is how WMUK plans to pay for the upkeep of QRpedia given that it wasn't in the budget.
There shouldn't be an issue there. The costs are minimal. Renewal costs for two domain names and maybe a few hours work by the existing IT contractors to transition things and sort out the security concerns that have been raised. The budget can absorb that.
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2013 7:59 PM, "geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote:
For example the next issue is how WMUK plans to pay for the upkeep of QRpedia given that it wasn't in the budget.
There shouldn't be an issue there. The costs are minimal. Renewal costs for two domain names and maybe a few hours work by the existing IT contractors to transition things and sort out the security concerns that have been raised. The budget can absorb that.
The need to have developer resources available to set up QRpedia on WMUK servers, and to maintain and improve it, has been thought about for a while now and was incorporated into this year's developer budget (although the activity plan doesn't explicitly state this).
Thanks, Mike
Agree with Mike on that - and I hope everyone will be pleased to learn that we've already been talking to our developers about how best to implement a system to ensure a seamless changeover. We've been very lucky in finding two developers who know how to keep their eye on the community pulse and are willing to "go the extra mile" for us when we need them.
Thanks to all involved in making sure the technology works!
*We've been very lucky in finding two developers who know how to keep their eye on the community pulse and are willing to "go the extra mile" for us when we need them.*
I'll second that!
As its likely we're changing the date of its meeting, anyone interesting in knowing more/getting involved in discussions about the planned development work could do worse than come to the next Tech committee meeting - http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technology_Committee
:)
On 11 February 2013 20:40, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Agree with Mike on that - and I hope everyone will be pleased to learn that we've already been talking to our developers about how best to implement a system to ensure a seamless changeover. We've been very lucky in finding two developers who know how to keep their eye on the community pulse and are willing to "go the extra mile" for us when we need them.
Thanks to all involved in making sure the technology works!
Rexx
On 11 February 2013 20:31, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2013 7:59 PM, "geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote:
For example the next issue is how WMUK plans to pay for the upkeep of QRpedia given that it wasn't in the budget.
There shouldn't be an issue there. The costs are minimal. Renewal costs
for two domain names and maybe a few hours work by the existing IT contractors to transition things and sort out the security concerns that have been raised. The budget can absorb that.
The need to have developer resources available to set up QRpedia on WMUK servers, and to maintain and improve it, has been thought about for a while now and was incorporated into this year's developer budget (although the activity plan doesn't explicitly state this).
Thanks, Mike
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org