--- Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000992.html
you write "c'est nouveau pour nous, faut que je
vois.
on va faire �a vite."
->it is new to us, I have to consider this. We
will
have to do this very quickly
No, I didn't say that. Alexis from Ouvaton said that because they decided to help Wikipedia already some time ago but informed me of their decision only Saturday 8th (yesterday) after I asked him again. You should read more carefully before making accusation, please.
You are absolutely right Yann, so I deeply apology
I regret though, that WE have to hurry because Ouvaton suggests that we do. What is there interest in pushing them to go quickly ? What do they gain in hosting us ?
Again, where is the hurry ? What is cooking on the fire ? Why could not it wait a few months ? Does it have anything to do with fr.Wikipedia presented as Wikipedia France at Crao Autrans, with a meeting organised in january, where you will present the project ?
I am just asking questions
And in this mail, you suggest the first assembly
to
take place on the 22 nd of november, and that meanwhile, we should agree on status, board and
other
minor problems
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/000996.html
But undoubtely, it was just interpretation
It's a proposition. Again I never said that there is any urgency. Why don't you simply propose another schedule ?
Let me propose another schedule
10th of september 2004
(that is my birth day, a good day)
I know very few commercial firms that would do
things
for free. There is always an interest. In that
case,
the adress being ouvaton.wikipedia.fr for example.
Ouvaton is not a commercial firm. It's a cooperative of webmasters.
Why would they host us for free ?
I said to Yann we had some material on the french wikipedia that could be problematic with french
law,
and that it could be eventually a problem.
He asked me to be more precise.
-> Fair use is not a doctrine recognised in France
There is an equivalent. We have to see how it is applicable.
[cut]
I do not think so. And the "we" is precisely the problem. Who is "we" ?
Do you expect me to spent again dozen of hours with Loo and others to fix everything ?
I said that wikipedia was one project in several languages, not several encyclopedia, and that what
he
was suggesting was a french-french project (the
server
will only host french wikipedia).
He answered that no, it was only a mirror of the french wikipedia.
In this mail
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html
you specifically say that this is a temporary
solution
before we set a read and write server
I said I understood that I understood there would
be
more pb raised than pb solved by the proposition
(I
personnnaly do not know)
He says, not if the server is read only.
But here In this mail
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikifr-l/2003-November/001004.html
he says read is only temporary
what are the technical issues in both cases then ?
I mean that this read only mirror of the French wp would be an experiment. If it works well, then we can think about making a read-write mirror (and maybe for other languages too) which is much more complicated, and even not possible. Technical questions have to be decided. I only made proposition which can be changed.
The miror issue is something I can not really understand well. I am not able to judge whether it will provide more hassle than removing some. I expect there are plenty of people here that will be ready to spent a lot of time to fix all that.
However, I do not understand why the association should be set up in such a hasty and unprepared way just because there is a very short deadline expected to set the miror
I wonder if there is no other way that a miror could be installed without setting up immediately an association
I also wonder (and this is no news for you) who is gonna write all the association goals, do the paperworks (not only at creation, but afterwards as well), what is the legal relationship with wikimedia, who is gonna take care of money "subventions" and so one.
The technical point is ONE point, the association is another. You are considering that we should accept the association as such, just because we should accept the mirror.
Je pense que ce que tu proposes est un
RightToFork
Non.
This should not need translation. What is the argument ?
For me, it is clear that the whole of Wikipedia has to agree before doing anything.
I am glad to hear that.
He says he is doing propositions; he waits counter propositions, not blocking just for pleasure
I apology Yann, but I do not do this for pleasure,
but
out of interest and concern for the project. I
think
any proposition should be dissected before being accepted, and who would dissect your proposition
but
me ? :-)
What I do is discussion, to reach consensus. That
is
the way we do on Wikipedia. I see not where your problem is with it.
I made propositions. You didn't. You just refuted my propositions. Please make counter-propositions including schedule, technical questions and management.
This is a poor argument Yann. You are the one making a proposition. That is your job to convince us, not my job to make another proposition.
Still, proposition : what about waiting till that new server is there and working ? All the tech people discussing mirrors on the tech list for a good couple of months instead of 10 days ? And taking the next 6 months to set a proper proposition for association ?
I think I asked you more than ample questions on irc (thank god !) and french ml.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree