from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Funding for the newly elected Board Members

body:
>This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since
>someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are
>most definitely not models to emulate. A great many non-profit
>organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt,
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their
actual >stated mission.

>-Mark

I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

---------------------------------

Oh, and... I forgot :-)
Angela feels very strongly about this. And it is important to the board not to do anything that might be highly upset some people. So, Angela will not come to Paris on the Foundation funds if the great majority of participants think it wrong.
However, from irc discussion, I perceive most participants think covering costs is acceptable.

Since this is the first board, nearly everything is to build to make it work properly and efficiently. Angel and I will do the best we can, but only with your help. Obviously, building a good financial basis is the first step. I'd like to remind people to comment and give feedback on the various starting points on meta (see the goings-on for a list of topics).

I think we should keep in mind the goals of the Foundation, which are to support the development of the various projects, as well as the distribution and the use of the accumulated knowledge. "Support" is also about finding funds for the project to work, and this requires to go look where the funds are available (not only to discuss on irc). "Support" is also about meeting with publishers and consider printing options (and this is not only done via email). "Support" is also about making the project known (and this is not only done through the wiki itself). Perhaps "support" is also about lobbying here and there for copyright issues :-)
It is very likely that "support" of development also goes through supporting meetings of tech people, perhaps professional training of the tech team, perhaps paying someone for the maintenance of our server farm. It is also likely that support of the project will require one day paying someone to defend us from a legal perspective, or an accountant when it becomes a full time job.

We are not here yet :-)

But I think most non-profit organization are working at the same time with volunteers and paid staff. They could not function without the volunteers, but they also need the paid staff to guarantee a certain level of professionalism when the organisation gets very big. Does that mean paying people is a waste of money, and that it is not useful to the actual mission ? I do not think so. When a financial officer is spending 8 hours a day taking care of accounting, placing money wisely so to make the best of the resources, I think it is not a loss of money to pay him, and it is more useful to the actual mission than to have no idea of how much money is available, not having a decent budget which allow planification, or just letting bills accumulate to the point of having legal troubles. Of course, we can hope to rely on volunteers to do this as long as possible, but to be honest, I would not expect a volunteer to do that full time for a long time.

Though, just as many of you here, the number of hours I spend on wiki is not far from being a full time already :-)

Is this too premature to talk about it ?
Perhaps
Or perhaps is it planification, long term vision ?

I understand you are worried about lack of efficiency, waste and corruption. It may interest you to know that Dannyisme added to possible official positions, the possibility of having an ombudsman. I personally think it is premature right now, but well....
You are welcome to comment on this anyway.

In any case, stay assured we won't do things community will be strongly opposed to.

Ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/0ed28df7/attachment.htm


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

body:
>This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since
>someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are
>most definitely not models to emulate. A great many non-profit
>organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt,
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their
actual >stated mission.

>-Mark

I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

---------------------------------

Oh, and... I forgot :-)
Angela feels very strongly about this. And it is important to the board not to do anything that might be highly upset some people. So, Angela will not come to Paris on the Foundation funds if the great majority of participants think it wrong.
However, from irc discussion, I perceive most participants think covering costs is acceptable.

Since this is the first board, nearly everything is to build to make it work properly and efficiently. Angel and I will do the best we can, but only with your help. Obviously, building a good financial basis is the first step. I'd like to remind people to comment and give feedback on the various starting points on meta (see the goings-on for a list of topics).

I think we should keep in mind the goals of the Foundation, which are to support the development of the various projects, as well as the distribution and the use of the accumulated knowledge. "Support" is also about finding funds for the project to work, and this requires to go look where the funds are available (not only to discuss on irc). "Support" is also about meeting with publishers and consider printing options (and this is not only done via email). "Support" is also about making the project known (and this is not only done through the wiki itself). Perhaps "support" is also about lobbying here and there for copyright issues :-)
It is very likely that "support" of development also goes through supporting meetings of tech people, perhaps professional training of the tech team, perhaps paying someone for the maintenance of our server farm. It is also likely that support of the project will require one day paying someone to defend us from a legal perspective, or an accountant when it becomes a full time job.

We are not here yet :-)

But I think most non-profit organization are working at the same time with volunteers and paid staff. They could not function without the volunteers, but they also need the paid staff to guarantee a certain level of professionalism when the organisation gets very big. Does that mean paying people is a waste of money, and that it is not useful to the actual mission ? I do not think so. When a financial officer is spending 8 hours a day taking care of accounting, placing money wisely so to make the best of the resources, I think it is not a loss of money to pay him, and it is more useful to the actual mission than to have no idea of how much money is available, not having a decent budget which allow planification, or just letting bills accumulate to the point of having legal troubles. Of course, we can hope to rely on volunteers to do this as long as possible, but to be honest, I would not expect a volunteer to do that full time for a long time.

Though, just as many of you here, the number of hours I spend on wiki is not far from being a full time already :-)

Is this too premature to talk about it ?
Perhaps
Or perhaps is it planification, long term vision ?

I understand you are worried about lack of efficiency, waste and corruption. It may interest you to know that Dannyisme added to possible official positions, the possibility of having an ombudsman. I personally think it is premature right now, but well....
You are welcome to comment on this anyway.

In any case, stay assured we won't do things community will be strongly opposed to.

Ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/0ed28df7/attachment-0001.htm


list: wikimedia-l

body:
>This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since
>someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are
>most definitely not models to emulate. A great many non-profit
>organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt,
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their
actual >stated mission.

>-Mark

I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

---------------------------------

Oh, and... I forgot :-)
Angela feels very strongly about this. And it is important to the board not to do anything that might be highly upset some people. So, Angela will not come to Paris on the Foundation funds if the great majority of participants think it wrong.
However, from irc discussion, I perceive most participants think covering costs is acceptable.

Since this is the first board, nearly everything is to build to make it work properly and efficiently. Angel and I will do the best we can, but only with your help. Obviously, building a good financial basis is the first step. I'd like to remind people to comment and give feedback on the various starting points on meta (see the goings-on for a list of topics).

I think we should keep in mind the goals of the Foundation, which are to support the development of the various projects, as well as the distribution and the use of the accumulated knowledge. "Support" is also about finding funds for the project to work, and this requires to go look where the funds are available (not only to discuss on irc). "Support" is also about meeting with publishers and consider printing options (and this is not only done via email). "Support" is also about making the project known (and this is not only done through the wiki itself). Perhaps "support" is also about lobbying here and there for copyright issues :-)
It is very likely that "support" of development also goes through supporting meetings of tech people, perhaps professional training of the tech team, perhaps paying someone for the maintenance of our server farm. It is also likely that support of the project will require one day paying someone to defend us from a legal perspective, or an accountant when it becomes a full time job.

We are not here yet :-)

But I think most non-profit organization are working at the same time with volunteers and paid staff. They could not function without the volunteers, but they also need the paid staff to guarantee a certain level of professionalism when the organisation gets very big. Does that mean paying people is a waste of money, and that it is not useful to the actual mission ? I do not think so. When a financial officer is spending 8 hours a day taking care of accounting, placing money wisely so to make the best of the resources, I think it is not a loss of money to pay him, and it is more useful to the actual mission than to have no idea of how much money is available, not having a decent budget which allow planification, or just letting bills accumulate to the point of having legal troubles. Of course, we can hope to rely on volunteers to do this as long as possible, but to be honest, I would not expect a volunteer to do that full time for a long time.

Though, just as many of you here, the number of hours I spend on wiki is not far from being a full time already :-)

Is this too premature to talk about it ?
Perhaps
Or perhaps is it planification, long term vision ?

I understand you are worried about lack of efficiency, waste and corruption. It may interest you to know that Dannyisme added to possible official positions, the possibility of having an ombudsman. I personally think it is premature right now, but well....
You are welcome to comment on this anyway.

In any case, stay assured we won't do things community will be strongly opposed to.

Ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/0ed28df7/attachment.html>


body:
>This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since
>someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are
>most definitely not models to emulate. A great many non-profit
>organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt,
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their
actual >stated mission.

>-Mark

I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

---------------------------------

Oh, and... I forgot :-)
Angela feels very strongly about this. And it is important to the board not to do anything that might be highly upset some people. So, Angela will not come to Paris on the Foundation funds if the great majority of participants think it wrong.
However, from irc discussion, I perceive most participants think covering costs is acceptable.

Since this is the first board, nearly everything is to build to make it work properly and efficiently. Angel and I will do the best we can, but only with your help. Obviously, building a good financial basis is the first step. I'd like to remind people to comment and give feedback on the various starting points on meta (see the goings-on for a list of topics).

I think we should keep in mind the goals of the Foundation, which are to support the development of the various projects, as well as the distribution and the use of the accumulated knowledge. "Support" is also about finding funds for the project to work, and this requires to go look where the funds are available (not only to discuss on irc). "Support" is also about meeting with publishers and consider printing options (and this is not only done via email). "Support" is also about making the project known (and this is not only done through the wiki itself). Perhaps "support" is also about lobbying here and there for copyright issues :-)
It is very likely that "support" of development also goes through supporting meetings of tech people, perhaps professional training of the tech team, perhaps paying someone for the maintenance of our server farm. It is also likely that support of the project will require one day paying someone to defend us from a legal perspective, or an accountant when it becomes a full time job.

We are not here yet :-)

But I think most non-profit organization are working at the same time with volunteers and paid staff. They could not function without the volunteers, but they also need the paid staff to guarantee a certain level of professionalism when the organisation gets very big. Does that mean paying people is a waste of money, and that it is not useful to the actual mission ? I do not think so. When a financial officer is spending 8 hours a day taking care of accounting, placing money wisely so to make the best of the resources, I think it is not a loss of money to pay him, and it is more useful to the actual mission than to have no idea of how much money is available, not having a decent budget which allow planification, or just letting bills accumulate to the point of having legal troubles. Of course, we can hope to rely on volunteers to do this as long as possible, but to be honest, I would not expect a volunteer to do that full time for a long time.

Though, just as many of you here, the number of hours I spend on wiki is not far from being a full time already :-)

Is this too premature to talk about it ?
Perhaps
Or perhaps is it planification, long term vision ?

I understand you are worried about lack of efficiency, waste and corruption. It may interest you to know that Dannyisme added to possible official positions, the possibility of having an ombudsman. I personally think it is premature right now, but well....
You are welcome to comment on this anyway.

In any case, stay assured we won't do things community will be strongly opposed to.

Ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/0ed28df7/attachment-0001.html>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jakob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories considered harmful

body:
Hi!

Maybe the problem with categories is not that bad in en.wikipedia, but as far as
I can see its pretty chaotic there, too. I wrote this having in mind the attemts
in de.wikipedia - my main reasons are true in every language.

Since Version 1.3 of MediaWiki we have the nice category function. In the
german wikipedia there is a lot of confusion and struggle on how to use
categories in the right way. As a student of library science I could tell
several methods how to classify, index and sort things but none of them
seems to be applicable easily with the current implementation of categories.

As far as I can tell there are three main reasons for Wikipedia's success:

1. It's very easy to contribute (Wikitax, everybody can edit)
2. Every edit is monitored in watchlists and list of lasts edits
   so we can control each other
3. There is a clear common mission - to create an encyclopedia (+NPOV)

As far as I also can see the category-function contradicts all of them:

1. It's not easy.

It's not easy to know how to do it in the right way because subject
indexing is a complex issue and it's not easy because of lacks in the
implementation (no rename, no redirects, no assignment of articles to
categories without editing every single the article pages). Editing an
article I have to guess which categories are existing, how they are
spelled and the rules what to classify into them and what not.

2. It's not controllable.

You cannot watch a category to get noticed on new articles or when
somebody removes an article from the category nor when sub-categories are
created.

3. There is no common mission

Can anybody tell the purpose of categories? Finding articles (without
a coordinated search function?!) Browsing in topics (without a clear
overview of all categories?!) Are we trying to index articles with
subject heading, using a thesaurus, a classification or even a structure
ontology? Library science has invented several kind of schemes like that
but at the moment everybody is muddling this and that trying to invent
the already invented wheels of documentation (by the way there are also
methods of automatic indexing, clustering and classification).

And: In classification there is no NPOV because there is no "right" way
to classify the world but it depends on the special needs and questions
I want to answer with a special system of subject indexing.

Given the reasons I strongly recommend to stop using the categories and
to focus on writing and improving good articles. Many categories can easily
be replaced with normal links between articles. Adding and removing
categories do not change an article's content a bit. If you want to
keep track of all articles in some area use (Wiki)Projects, article
series, portals and learn how to use the "what links here"-function!
A good article is an article that can be found easily without categories.

Indeed classifying wikipedia articles is very interesting and will
become more important, but this should be an independent project - maybe
in a "Classifipedia" or "Categorypedia" that links to wikipedia articles.

You know - librarians normally do not write the books they organize and
search engine experts do not write the websites they crawl, so let's focus
on what we can do the best: creating the most detailed, most understandable
and freest encyclopedia in the history of mankind!

Greetings,
  Jakob Voss (aka nichtich at de.wikipedia)


body:
Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
"Anthere" schrieb:

> I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue
> Mark :-)
>
> Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank.
> I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask
> him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400
> dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000
> euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.
>
> That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).
>
> JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year.
> You may find it here :
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
> Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars

I read this, and it looks very much underestimated to me.
The total database size of all Wikipedias is growing even slightly more
than exponentially, doubling time at the moment being six months.
Wikipedia's own usage statistics are not very clear, but in as far as
they are, they have increased more than tenfold in the past year. Alexa
tells us that our reach has grown 37% in three months time.

All this draws me to the conclusion: The amount of hardware we need
at the end of the year might easily be double what we need now. And
since we grow faster than Moore's law, we will NOT get by with keeping
the same amount of hardware or growing linearly. Add to that that at
the moment we do not have everything we want (there's well-known
regulars now who have no f***ing idea what the Maintenance Page is
for or what the Wikipedia search results look like).

I'm afraid that this kind of estimates, and Wikipedia hardware buys
in general, are often based on what would be comfortable now rather
than on what will be needed by the time the hardware actually arrives,
or even better, when the hardware _after that_ arrives.

Andre Engels

-----

Yo.
Please update the hardware requirement page. Best thing the dev team can do is to tell what they think will be needed in the coming months, so an accurate budget may be set, and funds be available when there is need.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/ab7b3df9/attachment.htm


body:
Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
"Anthere" schrieb:

> I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue
> Mark :-)
>
> Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank.
> I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask
> him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400
> dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000
> euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.
>
> That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).
>
> JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year.
> You may find it here :
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
> Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars

I read this, and it looks very much underestimated to me.
The total database size of all Wikipedias is growing even slightly more
than exponentially, doubling time at the moment being six months.
Wikipedia's own usage statistics are not very clear, but in as far as
they are, they have increased more than tenfold in the past year. Alexa
tells us that our reach has grown 37% in three months time.

All this draws me to the conclusion: The amount of hardware we need
at the end of the year might easily be double what we need now. And
since we grow faster than Moore's law, we will NOT get by with keeping
the same amount of hardware or growing linearly. Add to that that at
the moment we do not have everything we want (there's well-known
regulars now who have no f***ing idea what the Maintenance Page is
for or what the Wikipedia search results look like).

I'm afraid that this kind of estimates, and Wikipedia hardware buys
in general, are often based on what would be comfortable now rather
than on what will be needed by the time the hardware actually arrives,
or even better, when the hardware _after that_ arrives.

Andre Engels

-----

Yo.
Please update the hardware requirement page. Best thing the dev team can do is to tell what they think will be needed in the coming months, so an accurate budget may be set, and funds be available when there is need.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/ab7b3df9/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
"Anthere" schrieb:

> I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue
> Mark :-)
>
> Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank.
> I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask
> him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400
> dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000
> euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.
>
> That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).
>
> JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year.
> You may find it here :
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
> Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars

I read this, and it looks very much underestimated to me.
The total database size of all Wikipedias is growing even slightly more
than exponentially, doubling time at the moment being six months.
Wikipedia's own usage statistics are not very clear, but in as far as
they are, they have increased more than tenfold in the past year. Alexa
tells us that our reach has grown 37% in three months time.

All this draws me to the conclusion: The amount of hardware we need
at the end of the year might easily be double what we need now. And
since we grow faster than Moore's law, we will NOT get by with keeping
the same amount of hardware or growing linearly. Add to that that at
the moment we do not have everything we want (there's well-known
regulars now who have no f***ing idea what the Maintenance Page is
for or what the Wikipedia search results look like).

I'm afraid that this kind of estimates, and Wikipedia hardware buys
in general, are often based on what would be comfortable now rather
than on what will be needed by the time the hardware actually arrives,
or even better, when the hardware _after that_ arrives.

Andre Engels

-----

Yo.
Please update the hardware requirement page. Best thing the dev team can do is to tell what they think will be needed in the coming months, so an accurate budget may be set, and funds be available when there is need.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/ab7b3df9/attachment.html>


body:
Andre Engels <engelsAG at t-online.de> wrote:
"Anthere" schrieb:

> I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue
> Mark :-)
>
> Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank.
> I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask
> him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400
> dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000
> euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.
>
> That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).
>
> JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year.
> You may find it here :
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
> Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars

I read this, and it looks very much underestimated to me.
The total database size of all Wikipedias is growing even slightly more
than exponentially, doubling time at the moment being six months.
Wikipedia's own usage statistics are not very clear, but in as far as
they are, they have increased more than tenfold in the past year. Alexa
tells us that our reach has grown 37% in three months time.

All this draws me to the conclusion: The amount of hardware we need
at the end of the year might easily be double what we need now. And
since we grow faster than Moore's law, we will NOT get by with keeping
the same amount of hardware or growing linearly. Add to that that at
the moment we do not have everything we want (there's well-known
regulars now who have no f***ing idea what the Maintenance Page is
for or what the Wikipedia search results look like).

I'm afraid that this kind of estimates, and Wikipedia hardware buys
in general, are often based on what would be comfortable now rather
than on what will be needed by the time the hardware actually arrives,
or even better, when the hardware _after that_ arrives.

Andre Engels

-----

Yo.
Please update the hardware requirement page. Best thing the dev team can do is to tell what they think will be needed in the coming months, so an accurate budget may be set, and funds be available when there is need.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/ab7b3df9/attachment-0001.html>


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/90561fa5/attachment.pgp


body:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/90561fa5/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/90561fa5/attachment.pgp>


body:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/90561fa5/attachment-0001.pgp>


body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

------------------

Yup, correct. Sorry, my text was not strictly accurately written.
Other developers have such links suggesting donations. I think I saw one on Erik user page as well.

Actually, if you go on wikimediafoundation.org donation page, it is mentionned we could pay you part time with the funds Brion, and there is still a link there, suggesting to donate to the Brion Vibber notebook computer fund :-)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising

We can do such things, like adding on the donation page, a collection of links for various purposes, such as Brion notebook
or we can have it all get in the foundation funds, and use these funds according to the purpose for which they were given.
Opinions ? Legal issues ?

I do not need funding to go to Paris. I planned to get there anyway, whatever the results of the elections, just to meet with the french speaking people.

I am glad we convinced Jimbo to come and I will be even happier if Angel comes.

This travel will be optimised, as I will meet on saturday the 3rd, some people currently doing a CD Rom on sustainable development. They are willing to give us under gfdl part of their content, but want to meet first to discuss which content will be transfered, and how. Looxix will come to that meeting as well.

Aside from the content consideration, which will be great, I see this as an important move for the french wikipedia, and perhaps a step in a direction which will bring funds when the french association will be created :-)

This content donation was suggested by Bruno Oudet, who I met in Lyon, during a meeting in may. You may find a cv of Bruno Oudet here : http://web.archive.org/web/20030501121123/www-leibniz.imag.fr/SI/index.php?page=cvbo. I believe this person might help us further penetrate the french information network, but this very likely imply "meeting" him again in other circonstances.

ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/e43bf218/attachment.htm


body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

------------------

Yup, correct. Sorry, my text was not strictly accurately written.
Other developers have such links suggesting donations. I think I saw one on Erik user page as well.

Actually, if you go on wikimediafoundation.org donation page, it is mentionned we could pay you part time with the funds Brion, and there is still a link there, suggesting to donate to the Brion Vibber notebook computer fund :-)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising

We can do such things, like adding on the donation page, a collection of links for various purposes, such as Brion notebook
or we can have it all get in the foundation funds, and use these funds according to the purpose for which they were given.
Opinions ? Legal issues ?

I do not need funding to go to Paris. I planned to get there anyway, whatever the results of the elections, just to meet with the french speaking people.

I am glad we convinced Jimbo to come and I will be even happier if Angel comes.

This travel will be optimised, as I will meet on saturday the 3rd, some people currently doing a CD Rom on sustainable development. They are willing to give us under gfdl part of their content, but want to meet first to discuss which content will be transfered, and how. Looxix will come to that meeting as well.

Aside from the content consideration, which will be great, I see this as an important move for the french wikipedia, and perhaps a step in a direction which will bring funds when the french association will be created :-)

This content donation was suggested by Bruno Oudet, who I met in Lyon, during a meeting in may. You may find a cv of Bruno Oudet here : http://web.archive.org/web/20030501121123/www-leibniz.imag.fr/SI/index.php?page=cvbo. I believe this person might help us further penetrate the french information network, but this very likely imply "meeting" him again in other circonstances.

ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/e43bf218/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

------------------

Yup, correct. Sorry, my text was not strictly accurately written.
Other developers have such links suggesting donations. I think I saw one on Erik user page as well.

Actually, if you go on wikimediafoundation.org donation page, it is mentionned we could pay you part time with the funds Brion, and there is still a link there, suggesting to donate to the Brion Vibber notebook computer fund :-)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising

We can do such things, like adding on the donation page, a collection of links for various purposes, such as Brion notebook
or we can have it all get in the foundation funds, and use these funds according to the purpose for which they were given.
Opinions ? Legal issues ?

I do not need funding to go to Paris. I planned to get there anyway, whatever the results of the elections, just to meet with the french speaking people.

I am glad we convinced Jimbo to come and I will be even happier if Angel comes.

This travel will be optimised, as I will meet on saturday the 3rd, some people currently doing a CD Rom on sustainable development. They are willing to give us under gfdl part of their content, but want to meet first to discuss which content will be transfered, and how. Looxix will come to that meeting as well.

Aside from the content consideration, which will be great, I see this as an important move for the french wikipedia, and perhaps a step in a direction which will bring funds when the french association will be created :-)

This content donation was suggested by Bruno Oudet, who I met in Lyon, during a meeting in may. You may find a cv of Bruno Oudet here : http://web.archive.org/web/20030501121123/www-leibniz.imag.fr/SI/index.php?page=cvbo. I believe this person might help us further penetrate the french information network, but this very likely imply "meeting" him again in other circonstances.

ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/e43bf218/attachment.html>


body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
Anthere wrote:
> I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish
> that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two
> specific purposes were
> * hardware
> * purchase of a computer for Brion

I'd just like to point out that no Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. funds went
to the purchase of my PowerBook (which has been a big help in browser
compatibility testing, and I've fixed a number of icky wiki bugs during
my commute thanks to having it!)

Rather, I have a separate personal donation page (predating the
Wikimedia fund drive, I think) through which a number of very kind
people have kicked in a few bucks now and then, including a generous
personal donation by Jimbo. (Thanks again to all who helped!) I haven't
taken any wiki-related money that wasn't sent directly to me by the donor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

------------------

Yup, correct. Sorry, my text was not strictly accurately written.
Other developers have such links suggesting donations. I think I saw one on Erik user page as well.

Actually, if you go on wikimediafoundation.org donation page, it is mentionned we could pay you part time with the funds Brion, and there is still a link there, suggesting to donate to the Brion Vibber notebook computer fund :-)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising

We can do such things, like adding on the donation page, a collection of links for various purposes, such as Brion notebook
or we can have it all get in the foundation funds, and use these funds according to the purpose for which they were given.
Opinions ? Legal issues ?

I do not need funding to go to Paris. I planned to get there anyway, whatever the results of the elections, just to meet with the french speaking people.

I am glad we convinced Jimbo to come and I will be even happier if Angel comes.

This travel will be optimised, as I will meet on saturday the 3rd, some people currently doing a CD Rom on sustainable development. They are willing to give us under gfdl part of their content, but want to meet first to discuss which content will be transfered, and how. Looxix will come to that meeting as well.

Aside from the content consideration, which will be great, I see this as an important move for the french wikipedia, and perhaps a step in a direction which will bring funds when the french association will be created :-)

This content donation was suggested by Bruno Oudet, who I met in Lyon, during a meeting in may. You may find a cv of Bruno Oudet here : http://web.archive.org/web/20030501121123/www-leibniz.imag.fr/SI/index.php?page=cvbo. I believe this person might help us further penetrate the french information network, but this very likely imply "meeting" him again in other circonstances.

ant

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/e43bf218/attachment-0001.html>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tobin Richard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: problems upgrading from 2.2 to the 3.0 beta

body:
I think only wiki/config/ should be writable by apache.

Having wiki/ writable might make you vulnerable to attack.

Tobin.

On 18/06/2004, at 11:10 PM, john wrote:

> Hi Ashar,
>
> If you are referring to the wiki/config and the wiki/ directory, yes -
> both have full write access for the apache web user.   Are there any
> other permission changes that need to be made?
>
> Any clue as to what file this error is referring to?
>
> [pear_error: message="failed to open stream: Operation not permitted"
> code=0 mode=return level=notice prefix="" info=""]
>
>
> Thanks -John
>
> On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 04:41, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am having problems upgrading a wiki from 2.2 to the 3.0 beta.
>>> This wiki is located on a server where I do not have root access.  I
>>> followed up the install procedure and all indications were that it
>>> was
>>> successful.
>>>
>>> After copying LocalSettings and navigating to the wiki page:
>>> [pear_error: message="failed to open stream: Operation not
>>> permitted" code=0 mode=return level=notice prefix="" info=""]
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks -John
>>>
>>>
>>> PHP 4.3.5 ok
>> <snip>
>>>         Success! Move the LocalSettings.php file into the parent
>>>         directory, then follow this link to your wiki.
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Can you check your directory config got enough right for the user
>> apache
>> is running under ? It might use write access.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: International Wikimedia structure

body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
Le Monday 21 June 2004 11:46, Anthere a ?crit :
> Malheureusement, je suis d'accord avec lui sur TOUS ces points :-)
> Mais surtout r?pond !!!
> Il est important que ces aspects soient ?claircis et que nous puissions
> bien comprendre ce ? quoi correspond une association locale.

C'est en contradiction avec une association Wikim?dia francophone.
Quelle est ta position concernant une ?ventuelle association Wikim?dia en
Belgique wallone, en Suisse romande ou en Auvergne ?
Je pense que c'est aussi important de se mettre d'accord vis ? vis de la
fondation que vis ? vis de la future association francophone.

---------------

Ce n'est qu'en apparence contradictoire, car en ce qui me concerne, l'association NE DEVRAIT PAS s'appeler francophone, mais Wikim?dia fran?aise ou mieux WIKIMEDIA FRANCE, ce qui ote toute ambuiguit?. C'est ce que font les organisations internationales, qui ont des antennes dans un certain nombre de pays. Ces antennes ont une existence *l?gale*, et la l?galit? n'est pas li?e ? une langue mais ? une *localisation g?ographique*.

Je ne vois pas vraiment l'int?r?t d'une association auvergnate... mais bon...

J'esp?re vivement que d'ici l'an prochain ou peut ?tre 2/3 ans, nous aurons des associations ?quivalentes en Belgique et en Suisse. Et l'association en Belgique n'aidera pas uniquement le fran?ais, mais trois langues, donc en r?alit? aura pour objectif d'aider le Projet et de le promouvoir sur une ?chelle bien plus grande que simplement la wikip?dia (plus wiktionary....) fran?aise. Notre pauvret? de raisonnement est li? au fait que nous n'avons v?ritablement qu'une seule langue sur notre territoire.

Il faut arr?ter de penser linguistique, mais puisque nous sommes sur un point l?gal, il faut penser limites juridiques, et la limite juridique est le *pays*. Qu'on le veuille ou non.  L'avantage num?ro 1 de monter cette assoc est la d?ductibilit? fiscale, et ceci est li? au pays.

Si nous estimons que l'association en France est l'association FRANCOPHONE, nous nous comportons comme futurs "maitres" de toute autre association qui sera localis?e dans un pays francophone voisin. Et pourtant, les belges auront aussi un jour leur association, ne serait ce que pour b?n?ficier des r?ductions fiscales. Idem pour le canada. Nous serions la Francophone, alors seront ils l'assocation "Wikimedia Francophone II" ou la "Wikimedia Belgique", sous la houlette de la Francophone ? De quel droit nous arrogeons-nous nous, la France, de nous d?clarer le centre de la Francophonie ?

Arne a parfaitement raison. Cr?er des sous entit?s d'associations locales rel?ve de l'abh?ration. La Belgique s'appelera Wikimedia Belge, et l'association francophone ne doit pas avoir d'ing?rence sur son fonctionnement. Et comme le fait si bien remarquer Ryo, quid du management des serveurs ? Pourquoi aurions nous en France un droit sur la gestion des serveurs fran?ais servant la wikip?dia francophone, alors que la Belgique non ?

La r?ponse me semble simple. Le syst?me fonctionne actuellement parce que nous avons un unique propri?taire, et une unique ?quipe de d?veloppeurs qui bossent ensemble pour le bien de tous. Et maintenant Shai en fait partie, donc nous ne pouvons plus pr?tendre que les d?cisions sont prises par de lointains d?veloppeurs ne prenant pas nos besoins en compte. Il faut arr?ter de fantasmer sur le fait que nous sommes "g?r?s" depuis l'autre bout du monde :-)
Shaihulud, tous les d?veloppeurs allemands, Fire, Suisui et d'autres sont la preuve que l'?quipe est internationale.
Angela et moi sommes la preuve que le board n'est pas uniquement am?ricain.

Il y a vraiment deux niveaux. Il y a l'organisation, qui est internationale. Et il y aura bient?t une myriade d'associations locales, nationales, qui ? la fois aideront le projet dans son ensemble ET auront une autonomie locale. Le premier niveau ne connait pas de barri?res g?ographique, et de moins en moins linguistique. Le deuxi?me niveau doit se conformer aux limitations l?gales. Je crains qu'en cherchant ? nous imposer comme zone de libre ?change francophone, nous limitions fortement la future croissance des autres associations. Ce serait un mauvais cadeau ? leur faire.

Cela n'emp?che pas l'association fran?aise d'aider tous les pays alentours. Il y a fort ? parier que d'autres pays, peut ?tre les italiens ? choisiront de donner leur argent en Europe, pour des raisons de facilit? de paiement.

Wikimedia francophone : sous couvert d'une pseudo ?galit?, la France est encore en train une fois de plus, de se placer au centre de tout. Pouah ! Quelle horreur ! :-)

Il est ?vident que tant que d'autres associations n'existeront pas sur le sol belge ou canadien, nous devons apporter notre aide dans ces pays, tout autant que sur le sol fran?ais, mais avons nous l'intention pour autant de les forcer ? n'?tre que des sous entit?s de l'association francophone ?

Nous sommes un projet unique. Pas une collection d'entit?s qui vont chacunes tirer la couverture ? elle. Les associations ne sont pas uniquement la pour payer les petits fours, mais pour aider le projet dans son ensemble, ie, aussi pour payer le hardware commun par exemple.

Je vais reprendre les points de Arne uns par uns

--------------------------

akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects
and
chapters because all projects are international and should remain
widely
self-determined.

ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.

akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a
certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.

ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts.
Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.

Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?

akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia
Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter
should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be
meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the
national chapters.

Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.

However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.

It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/318ef2b9/attachment.htm


body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
Le Monday 21 June 2004 11:46, Anthere a ?crit :
> Malheureusement, je suis d'accord avec lui sur TOUS ces points :-)
> Mais surtout r?pond !!!
> Il est important que ces aspects soient ?claircis et que nous puissions
> bien comprendre ce ? quoi correspond une association locale.

C'est en contradiction avec une association Wikim?dia francophone.
Quelle est ta position concernant une ?ventuelle association Wikim?dia en
Belgique wallone, en Suisse romande ou en Auvergne ?
Je pense que c'est aussi important de se mettre d'accord vis ? vis de la
fondation que vis ? vis de la future association francophone.

---------------

Ce n'est qu'en apparence contradictoire, car en ce qui me concerne, l'association NE DEVRAIT PAS s'appeler francophone, mais Wikim?dia fran?aise ou mieux WIKIMEDIA FRANCE, ce qui ote toute ambuiguit?. C'est ce que font les organisations internationales, qui ont des antennes dans un certain nombre de pays. Ces antennes ont une existence *l?gale*, et la l?galit? n'est pas li?e ? une langue mais ? une *localisation g?ographique*.

Je ne vois pas vraiment l'int?r?t d'une association auvergnate... mais bon...

J'esp?re vivement que d'ici l'an prochain ou peut ?tre 2/3 ans, nous aurons des associations ?quivalentes en Belgique et en Suisse. Et l'association en Belgique n'aidera pas uniquement le fran?ais, mais trois langues, donc en r?alit? aura pour objectif d'aider le Projet et de le promouvoir sur une ?chelle bien plus grande que simplement la wikip?dia (plus wiktionary....) fran?aise. Notre pauvret? de raisonnement est li? au fait que nous n'avons v?ritablement qu'une seule langue sur notre territoire.

Il faut arr?ter de penser linguistique, mais puisque nous sommes sur un point l?gal, il faut penser limites juridiques, et la limite juridique est le *pays*. Qu'on le veuille ou non.  L'avantage num?ro 1 de monter cette assoc est la d?ductibilit? fiscale, et ceci est li? au pays.

Si nous estimons que l'association en France est l'association FRANCOPHONE, nous nous comportons comme futurs "maitres" de toute autre association qui sera localis?e dans un pays francophone voisin. Et pourtant, les belges auront aussi un jour leur association, ne serait ce que pour b?n?ficier des r?ductions fiscales. Idem pour le canada. Nous serions la Francophone, alors seront ils l'assocation "Wikimedia Francophone II" ou la "Wikimedia Belgique", sous la houlette de la Francophone ? De quel droit nous arrogeons-nous nous, la France, de nous d?clarer le centre de la Francophonie ?

Arne a parfaitement raison. Cr?er des sous entit?s d'associations locales rel?ve de l'abh?ration. La Belgique s'appelera Wikimedia Belge, et l'association francophone ne doit pas avoir d'ing?rence sur son fonctionnement. Et comme le fait si bien remarquer Ryo, quid du management des serveurs ? Pourquoi aurions nous en France un droit sur la gestion des serveurs fran?ais servant la wikip?dia francophone, alors que la Belgique non ?

La r?ponse me semble simple. Le syst?me fonctionne actuellement parce que nous avons un unique propri?taire, et une unique ?quipe de d?veloppeurs qui bossent ensemble pour le bien de tous. Et maintenant Shai en fait partie, donc nous ne pouvons plus pr?tendre que les d?cisions sont prises par de lointains d?veloppeurs ne prenant pas nos besoins en compte. Il faut arr?ter de fantasmer sur le fait que nous sommes "g?r?s" depuis l'autre bout du monde :-)
Shaihulud, tous les d?veloppeurs allemands, Fire, Suisui et d'autres sont la preuve que l'?quipe est internationale.
Angela et moi sommes la preuve que le board n'est pas uniquement am?ricain.

Il y a vraiment deux niveaux. Il y a l'organisation, qui est internationale. Et il y aura bient?t une myriade d'associations locales, nationales, qui ? la fois aideront le projet dans son ensemble ET auront une autonomie locale. Le premier niveau ne connait pas de barri?res g?ographique, et de moins en moins linguistique. Le deuxi?me niveau doit se conformer aux limitations l?gales. Je crains qu'en cherchant ? nous imposer comme zone de libre ?change francophone, nous limitions fortement la future croissance des autres associations. Ce serait un mauvais cadeau ? leur faire.

Cela n'emp?che pas l'association fran?aise d'aider tous les pays alentours. Il y a fort ? parier que d'autres pays, peut ?tre les italiens ? choisiront de donner leur argent en Europe, pour des raisons de facilit? de paiement.

Wikimedia francophone : sous couvert d'une pseudo ?galit?, la France est encore en train une fois de plus, de se placer au centre de tout. Pouah ! Quelle horreur ! :-)

Il est ?vident que tant que d'autres associations n'existeront pas sur le sol belge ou canadien, nous devons apporter notre aide dans ces pays, tout autant que sur le sol fran?ais, mais avons nous l'intention pour autant de les forcer ? n'?tre que des sous entit?s de l'association francophone ?

Nous sommes un projet unique. Pas une collection d'entit?s qui vont chacunes tirer la couverture ? elle. Les associations ne sont pas uniquement la pour payer les petits fours, mais pour aider le projet dans son ensemble, ie, aussi pour payer le hardware commun par exemple.

Je vais reprendre les points de Arne uns par uns

--------------------------

akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects
and
chapters because all projects are international and should remain
widely
self-determined.

ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.

akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a
certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.

ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts.
Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.

Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?

akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia
Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter
should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be
meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the
national chapters.

Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.

However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.

It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/318ef2b9/attachment-0001.htm


body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
Le Monday 21 June 2004 11:46, Anthere a ?crit :
> Malheureusement, je suis d'accord avec lui sur TOUS ces points :-)
> Mais surtout r?pond !!!
> Il est important que ces aspects soient ?claircis et que nous puissions
> bien comprendre ce ? quoi correspond une association locale.

C'est en contradiction avec une association Wikim?dia francophone.
Quelle est ta position concernant une ?ventuelle association Wikim?dia en
Belgique wallone, en Suisse romande ou en Auvergne ?
Je pense que c'est aussi important de se mettre d'accord vis ? vis de la
fondation que vis ? vis de la future association francophone.

---------------

Ce n'est qu'en apparence contradictoire, car en ce qui me concerne, l'association NE DEVRAIT PAS s'appeler francophone, mais Wikim?dia fran?aise ou mieux WIKIMEDIA FRANCE, ce qui ote toute ambuiguit?. C'est ce que font les organisations internationales, qui ont des antennes dans un certain nombre de pays. Ces antennes ont une existence *l?gale*, et la l?galit? n'est pas li?e ? une langue mais ? une *localisation g?ographique*.

Je ne vois pas vraiment l'int?r?t d'une association auvergnate... mais bon...

J'esp?re vivement que d'ici l'an prochain ou peut ?tre 2/3 ans, nous aurons des associations ?quivalentes en Belgique et en Suisse. Et l'association en Belgique n'aidera pas uniquement le fran?ais, mais trois langues, donc en r?alit? aura pour objectif d'aider le Projet et de le promouvoir sur une ?chelle bien plus grande que simplement la wikip?dia (plus wiktionary....) fran?aise. Notre pauvret? de raisonnement est li? au fait que nous n'avons v?ritablement qu'une seule langue sur notre territoire.

Il faut arr?ter de penser linguistique, mais puisque nous sommes sur un point l?gal, il faut penser limites juridiques, et la limite juridique est le *pays*. Qu'on le veuille ou non.  L'avantage num?ro 1 de monter cette assoc est la d?ductibilit? fiscale, et ceci est li? au pays.

Si nous estimons que l'association en France est l'association FRANCOPHONE, nous nous comportons comme futurs "maitres" de toute autre association qui sera localis?e dans un pays francophone voisin. Et pourtant, les belges auront aussi un jour leur association, ne serait ce que pour b?n?ficier des r?ductions fiscales. Idem pour le canada. Nous serions la Francophone, alors seront ils l'assocation "Wikimedia Francophone II" ou la "Wikimedia Belgique", sous la houlette de la Francophone ? De quel droit nous arrogeons-nous nous, la France, de nous d?clarer le centre de la Francophonie ?

Arne a parfaitement raison. Cr?er des sous entit?s d'associations locales rel?ve de l'abh?ration. La Belgique s'appelera Wikimedia Belge, et l'association francophone ne doit pas avoir d'ing?rence sur son fonctionnement. Et comme le fait si bien remarquer Ryo, quid du management des serveurs ? Pourquoi aurions nous en France un droit sur la gestion des serveurs fran?ais servant la wikip?dia francophone, alors que la Belgique non ?

La r?ponse me semble simple. Le syst?me fonctionne actuellement parce que nous avons un unique propri?taire, et une unique ?quipe de d?veloppeurs qui bossent ensemble pour le bien de tous. Et maintenant Shai en fait partie, donc nous ne pouvons plus pr?tendre que les d?cisions sont prises par de lointains d?veloppeurs ne prenant pas nos besoins en compte. Il faut arr?ter de fantasmer sur le fait que nous sommes "g?r?s" depuis l'autre bout du monde :-)
Shaihulud, tous les d?veloppeurs allemands, Fire, Suisui et d'autres sont la preuve que l'?quipe est internationale.
Angela et moi sommes la preuve que le board n'est pas uniquement am?ricain.

Il y a vraiment deux niveaux. Il y a l'organisation, qui est internationale. Et il y aura bient?t une myriade d'associations locales, nationales, qui ? la fois aideront le projet dans son ensemble ET auront une autonomie locale. Le premier niveau ne connait pas de barri?res g?ographique, et de moins en moins linguistique. Le deuxi?me niveau doit se conformer aux limitations l?gales. Je crains qu'en cherchant ? nous imposer comme zone de libre ?change francophone, nous limitions fortement la future croissance des autres associations. Ce serait un mauvais cadeau ? leur faire.

Cela n'emp?che pas l'association fran?aise d'aider tous les pays alentours. Il y a fort ? parier que d'autres pays, peut ?tre les italiens ? choisiront de donner leur argent en Europe, pour des raisons de facilit? de paiement.

Wikimedia francophone : sous couvert d'une pseudo ?galit?, la France est encore en train une fois de plus, de se placer au centre de tout. Pouah ! Quelle horreur ! :-)

Il est ?vident que tant que d'autres associations n'existeront pas sur le sol belge ou canadien, nous devons apporter notre aide dans ces pays, tout autant que sur le sol fran?ais, mais avons nous l'intention pour autant de les forcer ? n'?tre que des sous entit?s de l'association francophone ?

Nous sommes un projet unique. Pas une collection d'entit?s qui vont chacunes tirer la couverture ? elle. Les associations ne sont pas uniquement la pour payer les petits fours, mais pour aider le projet dans son ensemble, ie, aussi pour payer le hardware commun par exemple.

Je vais reprendre les points de Arne uns par uns

--------------------------

akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects
and
chapters because all projects are international and should remain
widely
self-determined.

ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.

akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a
certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.

ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts.
Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.

Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?

akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia
Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter
should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be
meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the
national chapters.

Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.

However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.

It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/318ef2b9/attachment.html>


body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
Le Monday 21 June 2004 11:46, Anthere a ?crit :
> Malheureusement, je suis d'accord avec lui sur TOUS ces points :-)
> Mais surtout r?pond !!!
> Il est important que ces aspects soient ?claircis et que nous puissions
> bien comprendre ce ? quoi correspond une association locale.

C'est en contradiction avec une association Wikim?dia francophone.
Quelle est ta position concernant une ?ventuelle association Wikim?dia en
Belgique wallone, en Suisse romande ou en Auvergne ?
Je pense que c'est aussi important de se mettre d'accord vis ? vis de la
fondation que vis ? vis de la future association francophone.

---------------

Ce n'est qu'en apparence contradictoire, car en ce qui me concerne, l'association NE DEVRAIT PAS s'appeler francophone, mais Wikim?dia fran?aise ou mieux WIKIMEDIA FRANCE, ce qui ote toute ambuiguit?. C'est ce que font les organisations internationales, qui ont des antennes dans un certain nombre de pays. Ces antennes ont une existence *l?gale*, et la l?galit? n'est pas li?e ? une langue mais ? une *localisation g?ographique*.

Je ne vois pas vraiment l'int?r?t d'une association auvergnate... mais bon...

J'esp?re vivement que d'ici l'an prochain ou peut ?tre 2/3 ans, nous aurons des associations ?quivalentes en Belgique et en Suisse. Et l'association en Belgique n'aidera pas uniquement le fran?ais, mais trois langues, donc en r?alit? aura pour objectif d'aider le Projet et de le promouvoir sur une ?chelle bien plus grande que simplement la wikip?dia (plus wiktionary....) fran?aise. Notre pauvret? de raisonnement est li? au fait que nous n'avons v?ritablement qu'une seule langue sur notre territoire.

Il faut arr?ter de penser linguistique, mais puisque nous sommes sur un point l?gal, il faut penser limites juridiques, et la limite juridique est le *pays*. Qu'on le veuille ou non.  L'avantage num?ro 1 de monter cette assoc est la d?ductibilit? fiscale, et ceci est li? au pays.

Si nous estimons que l'association en France est l'association FRANCOPHONE, nous nous comportons comme futurs "maitres" de toute autre association qui sera localis?e dans un pays francophone voisin. Et pourtant, les belges auront aussi un jour leur association, ne serait ce que pour b?n?ficier des r?ductions fiscales. Idem pour le canada. Nous serions la Francophone, alors seront ils l'assocation "Wikimedia Francophone II" ou la "Wikimedia Belgique", sous la houlette de la Francophone ? De quel droit nous arrogeons-nous nous, la France, de nous d?clarer le centre de la Francophonie ?

Arne a parfaitement raison. Cr?er des sous entit?s d'associations locales rel?ve de l'abh?ration. La Belgique s'appelera Wikimedia Belge, et l'association francophone ne doit pas avoir d'ing?rence sur son fonctionnement. Et comme le fait si bien remarquer Ryo, quid du management des serveurs ? Pourquoi aurions nous en France un droit sur la gestion des serveurs fran?ais servant la wikip?dia francophone, alors que la Belgique non ?

La r?ponse me semble simple. Le syst?me fonctionne actuellement parce que nous avons un unique propri?taire, et une unique ?quipe de d?veloppeurs qui bossent ensemble pour le bien de tous. Et maintenant Shai en fait partie, donc nous ne pouvons plus pr?tendre que les d?cisions sont prises par de lointains d?veloppeurs ne prenant pas nos besoins en compte. Il faut arr?ter de fantasmer sur le fait que nous sommes "g?r?s" depuis l'autre bout du monde :-)
Shaihulud, tous les d?veloppeurs allemands, Fire, Suisui et d'autres sont la preuve que l'?quipe est internationale.
Angela et moi sommes la preuve que le board n'est pas uniquement am?ricain.

Il y a vraiment deux niveaux. Il y a l'organisation, qui est internationale. Et il y aura bient?t une myriade d'associations locales, nationales, qui ? la fois aideront le projet dans son ensemble ET auront une autonomie locale. Le premier niveau ne connait pas de barri?res g?ographique, et de moins en moins linguistique. Le deuxi?me niveau doit se conformer aux limitations l?gales. Je crains qu'en cherchant ? nous imposer comme zone de libre ?change francophone, nous limitions fortement la future croissance des autres associations. Ce serait un mauvais cadeau ? leur faire.

Cela n'emp?che pas l'association fran?aise d'aider tous les pays alentours. Il y a fort ? parier que d'autres pays, peut ?tre les italiens ? choisiront de donner leur argent en Europe, pour des raisons de facilit? de paiement.

Wikimedia francophone : sous couvert d'une pseudo ?galit?, la France est encore en train une fois de plus, de se placer au centre de tout. Pouah ! Quelle horreur ! :-)

Il est ?vident que tant que d'autres associations n'existeront pas sur le sol belge ou canadien, nous devons apporter notre aide dans ces pays, tout autant que sur le sol fran?ais, mais avons nous l'intention pour autant de les forcer ? n'?tre que des sous entit?s de l'association francophone ?

Nous sommes un projet unique. Pas une collection d'entit?s qui vont chacunes tirer la couverture ? elle. Les associations ne sont pas uniquement la pour payer les petits fours, mais pour aider le projet dans son ensemble, ie, aussi pour payer le hardware commun par exemple.

Je vais reprendre les points de Arne uns par uns

--------------------------

akl : * There should be as clear as possible a separation between projects
and
chapters because all projects are international and should remain
widely
self-determined.

ant : I agree. Chapters are here essentially for legal practicability. If this was not true, the current chapters would not be currently created in those two countries where some of the major wikipedia languages are spoken :-) But legal limits are national, not per language.

akl : * Chapters should not primarily spend their money for projects in a
certain language but on all projects, as far as legally possible.

ant : I also agree. For two reasons. First we share a lot in common and we all have to participate to fund this common asset. If a local chapter raises money using the name of Wikimedia, then it should also participate the global Wikimedia operating costs. Not *only* on meeting cakes and promotional tee-shirts.
Since money was raised in using the Wikimedia name, it also should help those places who do not have money income, so as to help distribution of knowledge in other places.

Incidently, in most poor nations, several languages are used, so it will make sense to publish in more than 1 language. Still, I doubt these countries will have chapters on their own before a long time. This is a global project. Do we want to help information get there ?

akl * There should be no sub-chapters on national level (i.e. Wikimedia
Austria as a sub-chapter of Wikimedia Germany). Each national chapter
should be directly assigned to the Foundation. Exceptions could be
meaningful for regional chapters, which could be subordinated to the
national chapters.

Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our participation.

However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being descriptive.

It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/318ef2b9/attachment-0001.html>


subject: [Foundation-l] Funding for the newly elected Board Members

body:
I think it will ease a lot of
the concerns surrounding the idea we're about to jet off to Florida
each week. :)

We will not do that ? Jeeee... I am disappointed ;-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/f4b2bf12/attachment.htm


body:
I think it will ease a lot of
the concerns surrounding the idea we're about to jet off to Florida
each week. :)

We will not do that ? Jeeee... I am disappointed ;-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/f4b2bf12/attachment-0001.htm


body:
I think it will ease a lot of
the concerns surrounding the idea we're about to jet off to Florida
each week. :)

We will not do that ? Jeeee... I am disappointed ;-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/f4b2bf12/attachment.html>


body:
I think it will ease a lot of
the concerns surrounding the idea we're about to jet off to Florida
each week. :)

We will not do that ? Jeeee... I am disappointed ;-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20040621/f4b2bf12/attachment-0001.html>


body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we
> call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that
> is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to
> make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think
> this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our
> participation.

I see a contradiction here. It's especially *because* this chapter is not for
France only that it should be called "francophone", and not Wikimedia France.
There are already people from Belgium and Switzerland who want to work within
this chapter. And they rightfully object that this chapter is called
Wikimedia France. Which doesn't mean that, at a later date, people from
Switzerland or Belgium, could not create a local chapter in those places.
Then these local chapters will have to decide how they want to be assigned to
the foundation.

> However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french
> speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope
> that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for
> equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the
> official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being
> descriptive.
>
> It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

I think we have the same objectives. But Wikimedia France is not an adequate
name, because, for the forseable future, this chapter will not be acting only
in France.

Best wishes,
Yann

-------------------------

Sorry, but to my opinion, the contradiction is precisely on your side.
I know that I am a minority on this issue, but I would like to say that I think this name is probably one of the reason why we are *right now* confused on the role of the association.

When I say it should be called Wikim?dia France, I use a fact. I give a descriptive name. The description of its legal localisation, and there is no objection to say that it will be legally created in France. It is a fact, it is a *certainty*. It is not pov :-) It is a reality.
Hence, the name does not hold contradiction with the description of the association itself. It will be *an association created under the french law*.

On the other hand, you object that we should call it Wikimedia Francophone, because *in the foreseable future, it will not be acting in France only*.

I agree. Well, I hope it is so. I am not sure it will happen. This is not a fact, this is a wish. Perhaps it will come true, perhaps not. It is the future, and it is just a wish, nothing else. But I hope it will happen. I do not know exactly why, but I think that canadians will be disappointed though. Just a feeling :-)

Second, if I perfectly agree it should not be acting in France only, this name you are trying to impose also implies it will *primarily* act to promote the project in french-speaking countries only. It is not a name based on fact, it is a name that holds a very strong connotation. It openly says it "the goal of this association is to help french speaking projects".
And you actually say it yourself, it is to help promoting french language and set a miror or working server in France.
In short, it is openly dissociating itself from the global project. It is openly supporting only part of the project. Not the project globally.

This is why Wikimedia francophone is not an adequate name to my opinion. And this is precisely why we are currently all realising we *do not* have the same perception of what should be the association and which roles it should have.

And I want to insist that I really do not want to exclude non french people here. Some of my favorite french-speaking are not french :-) And they will be very precious in the french association :-)
I think the french association is just part of the global scheme, and it is obvious nearby countries will be served till they have an association on their own and people from all nationalities are welcome to help.
I am sorry Yann, but I just think you are trying to make it appear more political than it should be. And I won't support that with happiness. Just my opinion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/c5b5bc72/attachment.htm


body:
Yann Forget <yann at forget-me.net> wrote:
> Ant : I very strongly agree. Which is why I would be deeply unhappy that we
> call our local chapter "francophone". This is an attempt of fairness that
> is uncalled for. I know that some people support this, because they want to
> make it clear that the french chapter will not help France only. I think
> this is perfectly obvious that we should try to be more global in our
> participation.

I see a contradiction here. It's especially *because* this chapter is not for
France only that it should be called "francophone", and not Wikimedia France.
There are already people from Belgium and Switzerland who want to work within
this chapter. And they rightfully object that this chapter is called
Wikimedia France. Which doesn't mean that, at a later date, people from
Switzerland or Belgium, could not create a local chapter in those places.
Then these local chapters will have to decide how they want to be assigned to
the foundation.

> However, calling us francophone is bad. The next chapter in a french
> speaking country will likely be called by the country name, and I sure hope
> that it will not be submitted to the french chapter. We all wish here for
> equality, and I really see not why France will be once again, declared the
> official center of Francophonie. Wikimedia France has the merit of being
> descriptive.
>
> It seems to me that any other name is bringing confusion.

I think we have the same objectives. But Wikimedia France is not an adequate
name, because, for the forseable future, this chapter will not be acting only
in France.

Best wishes,
Yann

-------------------------

Sorry, but to my opinion, the contradiction is precisely on your side.
I know that I am a minority on this issue, but I would like to say that I think this name is probably one of the reason why we are *right now* confused on the role of the association.

When I say it should be called Wikim?dia France, I use a fact. I give a descriptive name. The description of its legal localisation, and there is no objection to say that it will be legally created in France. It is a fact, it is a *certainty*. It is not pov :-) It is a reality.
Hence, the name does not hold contradiction with the description of the association itself. It will be *an association created under the french law*.

On the other hand, you object that we should call it Wikimedia Francophone, because *in the foreseable future, it will not be acting in France only*.

I agree. Well, I hope it is so. I am not sure it will happen. This is not a fact, this is a wish. Perhaps it will come true, perhaps not. It is the future, and it is just a wish, nothing else. But I hope it will happen. I do not know exactly why, but I think that canadians will be disappointed though. Just a feeling :-)

Second, if I perfectly agree it should not be acting in France only, this name you are trying to impose also implies it will *primarily* act to promote the project in french-speaking countries only. It is not a name based on fact, it is a name that holds a very strong connotation. It openly says it "the goal of this association is to help french speaking projects".
And you actually say it yourself, it is to help promoting french language and set a miror or working server in France.
In short, it is openly dissociating itself from the global project. It is openly supporting only part of the project. Not the project globally.

This is why Wikimedia francophone is not an adequate name to my opinion. And this is precisely why we are currently all realising we *do not* have the same perception of what should be the association and which roles it should have.

And I want to insist that I really do not want to exclude non french people here. Some of my favorite french-speaking are not french :-) And they will be very precious in the french association :-)
I think the french association is just part of the global scheme, and it is obvious nearby countries will be served till they have an association on their own and people from all nationalities are welcome to help.
I am sorry Yann, but I just think you are trying to make it appear more political than it should be. And I won't support that with happiness. Just my opinion.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20040621/c5b5bc72/attachment-0001.htm