User talk:Fæ
How to contact me [edit]
 |
Unless we are in a current dialogue here, please use en:User talk:Fæ rather than this talk page. Thanks Fæ |
File:Wikimania WCA Tomer video notes 11 July 2012.pdf [edit]
Hi Fæ. Please could you add licensing information to this file? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association#Community participation in the WCA discussions [edit]
Hi Fae, I hope you're well. Just dropping a note here to ensure you're aware of my question at Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association#Community participation in the WCA discussions, You're probably someone that has been participating in most of the WCA-related discussions in their various forms, so I would appreciate an informed response from a knowledgeable person such as yourself. Thanks! Thehelpfulone 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm hanging back, as I want to encourage lots of different viewpoints and see if the page focuses a little. You may find it helpful to browse some of the resolution discussions, these were quite helpful around some of the topics mentioned. Outside of the Chapters list and a handful of direct emails, there is no other forum that we use. I constantly point folks back at meta if they have something to discuss. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, sure that's understandable, thanks for your reply. When you believe there are sufficient viewpoints, could you please also poke someone to confirm what Sue mentioned re the Chapters list being closed to subscription from the WMF (and any other subscription rules such as those that Johnbod suggested) is valid? I would poke someone myself but as you mentioned in a previous discussion, it's unclear from what's publicly available who should be poked! Thehelpfulone 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure I need to poke that one very hard, I believe this was covered by list discussion, though we probably ought to have a summary of that particular conclusion somewhere, so I may poke that aspect. If you think about it long enough, it probably is a good thing for independent governance, though I was not involved, nor an architect of that decision. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks. If you could get that summary soon it would be appreciated - for example there was an email forwarded from Chapters-l to Wikimediaindia-l a couple of hours ago about a new "Wiki Loves Earth" photo contest, something which wasn't sent to any of the public lists by the original sender. Presuming there are other emails such as this being sent to Chapters-l I'd like to subscribe (as I'm sure others who are interested in general chapter news would). Thehelpfulone 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the idea is that the chapters list is restricted to current chapter boards and staff (people drop off as soon as they leave the relevant board), but I would like to see this defined more clearly and it may well be that a chapter can recommend anyone it wants. The email you highlight would not be appropriate if restricted to the closed list, and we are normally quite conciencious about material relevant to the wider movement being cross-posted and I don't see that much on the list that would be very interesting or useful for non-Chapter bods. I did raise the question on the Chapters list itself with the following email, though nobody has got back to me yet, so maybe it was missed. I know you are active on IRC, so you might want to nag for action on the #wikimedia-chapters channel (which is open to all ;-) ):--Fæ (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks. If you could get that summary soon it would be appreciated - for example there was an email forwarded from Chapters-l to Wikimediaindia-l a couple of hours ago about a new "Wiki Loves Earth" photo contest, something which wasn't sent to any of the public lists by the original sender. Presuming there are other emails such as this being sent to Chapters-l I'd like to subscribe (as I'm sure others who are interested in general chapter news would). Thehelpfulone 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure I need to poke that one very hard, I believe this was covered by list discussion, though we probably ought to have a summary of that particular conclusion somewhere, so I may poke that aspect. If you think about it long enough, it probably is a good thing for independent governance, though I was not involved, nor an architect of that decision. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, sure that's understandable, thanks for your reply. When you believe there are sufficient viewpoints, could you please also poke someone to confirm what Sue mentioned re the Chapters list being closed to subscription from the WMF (and any other subscription rules such as those that Johnbod suggested) is valid? I would poke someone myself but as you mentioned in a previous discussion, it's unclear from what's publicly available who should be poked! Thehelpfulone 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Request: Publicly available scope of this list Fae [] 8 February 2013 23:14 To: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions <chapters@wikimedia.ch> Hi, As the topic was raised at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#Community_participation_in_the_WCA_discussions> and Sue Gardner felt the need to explain the differences between this list and Internal, could someone update <https://www.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/chapters>, which I believe is where an "official" public definition should be, and also the definition on our wiki at <http://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Mailing_list>. If a simple definition of scope, and how chapter folks can apply to become a member of this list, is not already defined somewhere, perhaps it should be agreed on the wiki? Thanks, Fae
Warning [edit]
I have no idea what compelled you to post private emails on the WCA Talk page. I thought I wouldn't have to point you to an established policy about not posting private or offlist mails here. I have been party to several blocks here on Meta for that exact indiscretion. I would ask you to remove that as soon as possible or offer Alice's permission as proof that she was aware. This policy is irrelevant of the content or the subject of the email, and expects a minimum level of privacy with email exchanges. Theo10011 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Theo, does this apply to my own emails, as these were the only ones I posted, apart from the email I explicitly asked permission to post on meta? It is worth noting that my first email asked what capacity the email was in, and on the 7th October 2012, my email asked "Could you also confirm if you are happy for us to make your email public at our discretion?", the answer the same day was "But if you see benefit in involving a broader audience, feel free to do so." I would appreciate a link to any policy that applies on this matter. You will note that all my official correspondence as a charity trustee and when acting in my capacity as the Chapters Association Chair are considered on the record, and may be produced in any public investigation or audit. Those emails which are private and confidential are marked as such. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, in the past this has applied to private emails from the sender, though there is some discretion until the recipient complains. It is entirely contingent on the other party's objection. I'm surprised that I have to explain this trivial point about minimum expectation of privacy in a private correspondence. Second, I read your exchange before you posted the email and it did not have any explicit permission from Alice. It was more along the lines of "Do what you want, I'm not getting involved." That hardly qualifies as her permission. As for your official capacity, it is completely irrelevant here. This has nothing to do with your board, chapter or WCA. You might be charity trustee in your country, it has no bearing to your record and standing on this wiki. You are a user of this wiki, there are admins and we follow certain rules. I might have to dig through the explicit mention on a policy page for this, but its usually derived from common sense that you don't post private correspondence publicly. I can however link you to a couple of admins including myself who have blocked or warned individuals from posting private correspondence, I can do even better than that and link you to a similar response for posting private mailing list content like Internal-l. And as a matter of law, all private emails, even those unmarked are considered private correspondences and require some sort of breach of privacy depending on the jurisdiction. There is an inherent expectation of privacy, especially in the last case since the email was marked "OFFLIST" - that alone explicitly makes the email not for public disclosure and qualifies it as "private and confidential". As I suggested on the page, the first thing you should do is remove that email, unless Alice responds and doesn't object, my warning stands. Theo10011 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll remove it based on your official warning. Personally, I remain surprised at your view that there would be any doubt over publishing an email exchange where two trustees from the Wikimedia Foundation board were writing to the Chair and deputy Chair of the Chapters association in their official capacities on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and where there had at the time been a written confirmation that is was okay to republish the email, or that this can be interpreted as publishing a personal correspondence where there would be a natural expectation of privacy. As for the other email where Alice's release is given in the conversation meta, I have followed your direction and censored the discussion until such as time as Alice gives a full and proper release that meets your expectation in line with the established policy on meta. I am sure that she would rather these matters were public, rather than be thought to be engaged in secret correspondence, in line with our shared value of openness and transparency. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate it. If she was indeed communicating in her official capacity as both of your positions suggests, she would have replied onlist, the fact that she explicitly marked her email as offlist gives her discretion in which capacity she might be speaking in. It is not for you or me to judge, and better to avoid. If she wanted it public, it is better she posts rather than you, in the heat of the discussion with her choosing to abstain and distancing herself from further involvement. I hope you can look at this from a neutral point of view without any of the issues surrounding the email or that discussion, and see the point. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll remove it based on your official warning. Personally, I remain surprised at your view that there would be any doubt over publishing an email exchange where two trustees from the Wikimedia Foundation board were writing to the Chair and deputy Chair of the Chapters association in their official capacities on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and where there had at the time been a written confirmation that is was okay to republish the email, or that this can be interpreted as publishing a personal correspondence where there would be a natural expectation of privacy. As for the other email where Alice's release is given in the conversation meta, I have followed your direction and censored the discussion until such as time as Alice gives a full and proper release that meets your expectation in line with the established policy on meta. I am sure that she would rather these matters were public, rather than be thought to be engaged in secret correspondence, in line with our shared value of openness and transparency. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, in the past this has applied to private emails from the sender, though there is some discretion until the recipient complains. It is entirely contingent on the other party's objection. I'm surprised that I have to explain this trivial point about minimum expectation of privacy in a private correspondence. Second, I read your exchange before you posted the email and it did not have any explicit permission from Alice. It was more along the lines of "Do what you want, I'm not getting involved." That hardly qualifies as her permission. As for your official capacity, it is completely irrelevant here. This has nothing to do with your board, chapter or WCA. You might be charity trustee in your country, it has no bearing to your record and standing on this wiki. You are a user of this wiki, there are admins and we follow certain rules. I might have to dig through the explicit mention on a policy page for this, but its usually derived from common sense that you don't post private correspondence publicly. I can however link you to a couple of admins including myself who have blocked or warned individuals from posting private correspondence, I can do even better than that and link you to a similar response for posting private mailing list content like Internal-l. And as a matter of law, all private emails, even those unmarked are considered private correspondences and require some sort of breach of privacy depending on the jurisdiction. There is an inherent expectation of privacy, especially in the last case since the email was marked "OFFLIST" - that alone explicitly makes the email not for public disclosure and qualifies it as "private and confidential". As I suggested on the page, the first thing you should do is remove that email, unless Alice responds and doesn't object, my warning stands. Theo10011 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks [edit]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair&diff=5288080&oldid=5286358 – Thank you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
About membership of WCAC [edit]
Hi, WMBD signed on the Berlin Agreement in support of forming the WCA and we had an informal discussion about our representation in the council shortly after chapters meeting 2012. And in that discussion, I was chosen to represent our chapter in the council for the interim period and that remains so till now . However, we are yet to make any formal resolution on that. We will have formal discussion about selection of our representative soon and will formally nominate our representative. Till then, just corrected the wrongly written name:)
Cheers.
- Ali Haidar Khan (Tonmoy) (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Discussion moved [edit]
I moved a discussion that you participated in to User_talk:Tarc#Ad_hominem_tangent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wikinewsie Group provisional board selection [edit]
Hi. You indicated an interest in supporting The Wikinewsie Group. We are currently in the process of trying to determine the best time for a meeting to determine the composition of the provisional board of the organization. If you are interested in attending or possible running for the board, please go to The Wikinewsie Group/Meetings and indicate which time would be best for you by 26 April. We plan to announce the time for the board meeting based on greatest potential availability on 28 April. --LauraHale (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The Wikinewsie Group provisional board selection meeting time [edit]
Hi. This is to inform you that the meeting for the provisional board selection meeting for The Wikinewsie Group will take place in #wikinews-groupconnect on May 4, 2013 at 13:00 UTC, which is 8:00 in Mexico City, 9:00 in New York City, 15:00 in Berlin and 23:00 in Sydney. If you are interested in being on the provisional board but cannot attend, please comment at Talk:The Wikinewsie Group/Meetings to let the community know. --LauraHale (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
