[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions
Peter van Londen
londenp at gmail.com
Wed Apr 25 13:51:47 UTC 2007
I don't see the relevance of your answer.
What does that have to do with the fact that this policy is unnecessary for
many projects, where the Foundation still has some authority left and these
problems do not occur?
It is just a matter of opinion: if it is not broken: don't try to fix it.
Apparently in this example you mention: it is broken, the Foundation lost
its authority (so clearly that not even Office works), so fix it there.
There is no need to fix it project-wide (certainly when most office workers
will have knowledge of a few languages like every normal person). This
problem seems to be very limited compared to the total projects the
Foundation has. Simply asking a steward or representative from that certain
community will do in most cases and will be better accepted by the smaller
communities, than someone they don't know removes a part of their content.
In some issues it is better to have it fixed at the top. In this case not: I
would use the network of stewards and other people in stead of forcing it
upon the project instead.
Bureaucracy is not the goal here.
Kind regards, Londenp
2007/4/25, GerardM <gerard.meijssen op gmail.com>:
> Defining office action as an instrument is not the same as using this
> instrument itself. We have at the moment some 250 Wikipedias over 170
> Wiktionaries and many other projects. You do not want to argue every time
> when an Office action is to be executed for a first time. You want it to
> clear upfront with no discussions when an office action is executed.
> As the logo was deleted and a new copy was uploaded after 30 minutes, the
> situation IS broken.
> We do a license that allows for the distribution of a logo under terms
> respects the restrictions that a trade mark implies.
> On 4/25/07, Peter van Londen <londenp op gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again I will state:
> > I don't understand that you want to repair something which is not
> > If there is a necessity (mainly the EN:WP) you formalize office-actions
> > there. If there is not a necessity, because the community accepts
> > authority
> > from the Foundation (without a policy backing this up): you don't need
> > enforce it on all the projects.
> > Apparently there is one project which needs this policy (EN:WP) and
> > might be 2 or 3 others; enforcing it project-wide is unnecessary and
> > premature.
> > Kind regards, Londenp
> > 2007/4/25, Andre Engels <andreengels op gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > 2007/4/25, Delirium <delirium op hackish.org>:
> > >
> > > > Why is there a need for an office action in this case? My
> > is
> > > > that office actions are for time-sensitive matters that are
> > particularly
> > > > unusual. Deleting copyright violations is a very normal thing that
> > do
> > > > routinely; there's no need for some sort of Official Intervention to
> > do
> > > > so, and even Normal Wikipedians can request such deletions and have
> > > > their requests honored.
> > >
> > > In my opinion an office action necessary to specify that this actually
> > > is not a request but an order. If I ask for a copyright violation to
> > > be deleted, the people from the wiki where I do the request may still
> > > decide that in their opinion it is not one, and let the text or image
> > > stay. Against an office action they would not have such a choice.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andre Engels, andreengels op gmail.com
> > > ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l