[Foundation-l] Reply to Mark
gattonero at gmail.com
Fri Feb 29 07:46:18 UTC 2008
Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This thread should probably have a more appropriate title.
>> As others have eloquently said, Wikimedia is about free - as in
>> freedom. The
>> choice of where to meet, as participants in Wikimedia projects,
>> without doubt take this principle into account.
> It should probably be pointed out just one more time -- even if it is
> exceedingly obvious -- that our Egyptian colleagues are participants
> in our community as well. And to my knowledge, they have not yet been
> able to attend a Wikimania, due to visa issues with the countries
> involved where we have held the conference in the past. Believe me, it
> wasn't through lack of trying, all three years.
Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral
behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the
Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past?
Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa
It's not our fault.
> I can say that this conference choice was not made for political
> reasons or as a political statement; that much should be clear.
Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously
some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in
place where freedom doesn't exist").
> I also
> sincerely hope that anyone who can't attend this year -- whether it's
> because Egypt is too far, because they don't have enough money,
> because they fear for their safety traveling, or any other reason --
> will be able to join the conference in future years in other places,
> because Wikimania is a truly amazing event.
Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come.
And thanks for the contributions,cheers.
> I am personally very sorry that people are upset over the location
> choice and feel personally discriminated against because of it.
What? "Personally discriminated"?
That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the
More information about the foundation-l