Anthere, pourquoi es-tu si n�gative ?
just as usual
to slow down hasty decisions
Le Sunday 09 November 2003 17:33, Anthere a �crit :
Quelle est la proc�dure maintenant ?
c'est nouveau pour nous, faut que je vois.
on va
faire �a vite.
Pourquoi vite ? Ou est l urgence pr�cisemment
?
En fait, Ouvaton avait pris cette d�cision il y
a au
moins une semaine d�j�, mais ils viennent seulement de m'en informer,
apr�s
que je les ai relanc�.
Je ne vois toujours pas en quoi nous serions
press�s
et n aurions pas le temps d en discuter tranquillement, d un point de vue international.
Mais je n'ai pas dit qu'il y avait urgence. C'est toi qui a interpr�t� les choses de cette fa�on.
Yann said "But I didnot say there was urgency. It is you who interpretated things that way"
Sure Yann
In this mail, 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
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
Il ne me semble pas que nous ayons a suivre
Ouvaton
dans leurs objectifs.
??? Que veux-tu dire ? Le seul objectif d'Ouvaton, c'est d'aider Wikip�dia. Faut arr�ter la parano.
Yann said that the only goal of Ouvaton was to help Wikipedia, and that I was paranoid in saying we did not have to be hasty just because Ouvaton had agreed to host us (and could perhaps change their mind if we took too much time)
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.
Do we want that ?
Les serveurs de Ouvaton sont � Paris.
Et pour mon autre question : qui aura la responsabilit� l�gale en cas de probl�me ?
C'est une bonne question. ;o) Peut-on d�cider de qui aura la responsabilit�
l�gale
du miroir ? Je n'en sais rien. Perso, �a ne m'inqui�te pas tellement pour l'instant.
moi oui. Il y a du mat�riel sur fr qui ne respecte pas les
lois
fran�aises
Peux-tu pr�ciser ?
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
Je suis pr�t � prendre cette responsabilit� si n�cessaire.
Tu as des connaissances l�gales ?
J'ai l'exp�rience de g�rer des associations et du droit d'auteur, en particulier li� � Internet.
I asked Yann who would have legal responsability in case of a problem (such as copyright issues). He said he was ready to carry that responsability. I asked him if he had legal knowledge. He answered he was experienced in managing information, author rights, in particular as related to Internet.
Fair use as well ?
Pour quelles raisons serait tu jug� responsable
par la
loi d actions ill�gales commises par les autres ?
C'est pour cela que le probl�me ne se pose pas pour l'instant. En particlier, pas dans les termes que tu sembles sugg�rer.
I asked why he would be as an individual responsible for our legal issues. He answered there were no problem right now.
Le probl�me, c'est plut�t : que doit-on copier
sur
le miroir ?
- Tout.
- Uniquement les articles encyclop�diques.
- Une selection des articles encyclop�diques.
- ?
la r�ponse est �vidente. A mes yeux. Une
association
francaise est soumise a la loi francaise si elle veut ne pas etre attaqu�e puis condamnee,
elle
doit respecter la loi
Tout � fait, mais ma question n'est pas li�e � un probl�me juridique, mais encyclop�dique.
He asked what would be copied on the miror, everything, only encyclopedic articles, a selection of encyclopedic articles
That is a good question :-) Who would do the job of selecting the articles every night ? :)
donc, nous ne pouvons pas y mettre tout. Qui va s occuper de faire le tri ?
Je propose des solutions en fonctions des informations que j'ai. Rien n'est d�cid�, en particulier, pour les questions techniques.
Mais pourquoi toute la communaut� a t elle a etre
impliqu�e ?
J'entends bien que c'est un projet de Wikip�dia, pas un projet personnel. C'est pourquoi il faut cr�er une association.
I asked why the whole community had to be involved in a simple mirror setting ? He said it was not a personal project and that was why we had to create an association
I say that is why we have to talk about it before creating an association
Oui. A ce propos, Jimbo appr�cierait qu'on lui
parle
un peu de ce projet. Je pense qu'il serait pas mal
que
Yann parle de ceci sur la
wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
C'est fait. Brion est d�j� au courant car je lui ai demand� des infos techniques.
and what are the answers ? Brion ?
Wikipedia.org est un projet international. Commun. Avec 40 langues diff�rentes. Pas un projet franco fran�ais. Ce que tu es en train de proposer.
Non, c'est simplement un miroir de la partie francophone.
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
D'un point de vue technique, il me semble avoir compris que la mise en place de pls serveurs
poserait
plus de pb qu'il n'en r�soudrait.
S'ils sont en lecture et �criture, oui. En lecture simple, non.
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 ?
Je pense que ce que tu proposes est un RightToFork
Non.
This should not need translation. What is the argument ?
En bref, demain, plus besoin du serveur am�ricain l'encyclop�die est franco-fran�aise et le reste du projet ne nous importe plus.
Anthere, peux-tu �tre POSITIVE de temps en temps ?
He says I should be positive sometimes :-)
He is right of course :-)))
Je r�p�te si je n'ai pas �t� assez clair. J'ai fait des propositions. J'attends des contre-propositions. Pas des r�futations ou des blocages pour le plaisir.
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.
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop�die libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
First my idea was that French speaking people make a common proposition before talking to the whole of Wikipedia.
Le Sunday 09 November 2003 19:03, Anthere a écrit :
Yann said "But I didnot say there was urgency. It is you who interpretated things that way"
Sure Yann
In this mail, 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 ça 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.
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 ?
Yann said that the only goal of Ouvaton was to help Wikipedia, and that I was paranoid in saying we did not have to be hasty just because Ouvaton had agreed to host us (and could perhaps change their mind if we took too much time)
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.
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 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.
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.
Anthere, peux-tu être POSITIVE de temps en temps ?
He says I should be positive sometimes :-)
He is right of course :-)))
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.
Yann - -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
--- 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
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org