My understanding (the people to ask would be Martin and Jon, but this is my understanding in the interim), is that there was one document - designed to evaluate learning styles and divide participants into  four categories - which they used, but for which the copyright belonged to a third party.

I was under the impression that all the training materials themselves were to be released under the CC-By-SA license.    ---- Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ

Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell

________________________________ From: "fabian@unpopular.org.uk" fabian@unpopular.org.uk To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 22:47 Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] "open access ethos of Wikimedia UK"

Hi all,

I would like to know what other people understand as the "open access ethos of Wikimedia UK". The reason I ask is that I have been informed that Midas - who are delivering the Training for Trainers programme - have been arguing that as they chose to use a process which was not written for WMUK, some of their material is not available under a CC license. They have suggested that WMUK pay an additional fee which they are happy to quote for.

As the initial tender specified "An agreement that the training materials produced will be open access under a CC-BY-SA licence" I do not really understand how Midas chose to use non CC material in the process for delivering their course. At first glance it would seem that this is not in compliance with the temrs of the tender.

I must admit that I find Open access and open content as being quite fundamental to Wikipedia, the sister projects and WMUK. This is whaqt I understand by "Supporting Free and Open Knowledge". I personally have a strong commitment to developing "Open Educational Resources" and was particularly looking forward to the Eduwiki conference which has this as one of its themes.

In this context, I don't really understand why WMUK is having difficulty in making sure that its own training programme sits comfortably into the CC framework. I would welcome any comments which would help explain this?

all the best

Fabian (User:Leutha)

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 1 July 2012 22:47, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:

I would like to know what other people understand as the "open access ethos of Wikimedia UK". The reason I ask is that I have been informed that Midas - who are delivering the Training for Trainers programme - have been arguing that as they chose to use a process which was not written for WMUK, some of their material is not available under a CC license.

I believe you are referring to the outcome of the meeting of 27 June at the office between Midas and me. If so, what you have written does not really represent the position correctly.

As the initial tender specified "An agreement that the training materials produced will be open access under a CC-BY-SA licence" I do not really understand how Midas chose to use non CC material in the process for delivering their course. At first glance it would seem that this is not in compliance with the temrs of the tender.

I cannot answer that directly. It would be helpful to note, though, that the course is one that they have given before, and actually have given since. From the point of view of the material, it would be helpful to divide it into three:

(a) slides and handout materials; (b) training notes; (c) material that is proprietary and where the rights are not with Midas.

The material under (a) is released under CC-by-SA, as I understood from meeting them (Martin Poulter was there via Skype). The other material is not.

They have suggested that WMUK pay an additional fee which they are happy to quote for.

There I think you have misunderstood the notes of the meeting.

What I asked was that Midas quote for a different package of material. It is not part of the workshop course as given June 9-10.

While I was there on the courseI chatted to Candy of Midas, and one thing that came up was a distinction between "coach" and "mentor". I thought this was interesting, in that on Wikipedia (IMO) we seem to conflate the two. As an idea of how we could get some of this external know-how into "the system", I suggested that Midas quote to WMUK for a training package on the topic "coaching and mentoring". This they are happy to do, but it would be written for WMUK.

It was my suggestion that the quote should be itemised, to show clearly the cost of releasing under CC-by-SA. I thought this was the transparent way to go, I support where possible the "open ethos", but if there is a cost to it, I think we all should know what that is.

Please note that this package is not in any case covered by the initial tender for TfT. If the package is bought, we could run part of a VLE workshop from it ourselves, both trying to put over the content, and evaluating the package.

That at least is why I brought the matter up.

I must admit that I find Open access and open content as being quite fundamental to Wikipedia, the sister projects and WMUK. This is whaqt I understand by "Supporting Free and Open Knowledge". I personally have a strong commitment to developing "Open Educational Resources" and was particularly looking forward to the Eduwiki conference which has this as one of its themes.

In this context, I don't really understand why WMUK is having difficulty in making sure that its own training programme sits comfortably into the CC framework. I would welcome any comments which would help explain this?

There is an agreement between WMUK and Midas on paper, but I have only had some of the consequences of it explained to me.

Charles