[17:55:13] Hi Geoff [17:55:33] Hi Steve. Hope everyone has recovered well from the holidays. [17:59:03] hi, gbrigham [17:59:14] Hi luisv! [18:00:26] Hi Ironholds [18:00:37] hi [18:01:04] * siebrand smiles. [18:01:10] Hi everyone. :) We are happy to spend the next hour talking about issues facing the Legal and Community Advocacy Department. People are free to raise any topics, but some relevant recent subjects may include the following: [18:01:30] 1. The ongoing community consultation on the proposed conflict of interest guidelines: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest & https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/04/wikimedia-community-input-requested-for-conflict-of-interest-guidelines/ [18:01:32] 2. The naming of thematic organizations and user groups: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/18/naming-of-new-wikimedia-movement-entities/ [18:01:34] 3. The recent dismissal of the case that Internet Brands filed against two Wikimedians and WMF’s support of their defense; and the court’s denial of Internet Brands motion to dismiss in the case brought by WMF: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/28/update-to-internet-brands-travel-site-lawsuit/ & https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/17/state-court-overrules-internet-brands-demurrer/ [18:01:35] 4. Recent court victories in Germany and France: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/04/two-german-courts-rule-in-favor-of-free-knowledge-movement/ [18:01:36] 5. Trademark licensing: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/02/licensing-at-the-wikimedia-foundation/ [18:01:38] 6. Upcoming plans 2013 [18:02:00] Hi everyone - Greatly appreciate everyone joining. [18:02:13] Stephen and Michelle are here with me as well to answer questions. [18:02:39] Hello everyone [18:02:45] hi [18:03:03] hi jeromyu [18:03:16] How's the case against Internet brands going? [18:03:28] The case is going quite well. [18:03:44] As you know, Internet Brands chose to sue two Wikimedians. [18:04:00] We made a decision at WMF to support the defense of these Wikimedians [18:04:15] One of the best internet litigation firms in the country was retained. [18:04:36] To make a long story short, the federal court has dismissed all counts against the Wikimedians. [18:04:41] We are quite pleased with the result. [18:04:49] I saw the blog post about that [18:04:50] We also decided to sue Internet Brands. [18:04:57] Yeah, that bit [18:05:04] How is that going? [18:05:05] Internet Brands tried to have our case dismissed. [18:05:08] They failed. [18:05:14] O [18:05:19] :-) [18:05:22] A court has recognized our right to move forward. And we will. [18:05:36] What is it you want from IB? [18:05:44] Karma ftw [18:05:47] :) [18:05:53] Hi Philippe_ [18:06:04] * Philippe_ is having connection problems, so sorry [18:06:16] In San Francisco? [18:06:21] We need to ensure against any interference with Wikivoyage. [18:06:22] Philippe: omg now we know your IP address! :D [18:06:57] In addition to the IB litigation, we have had a number of victories internationally as well. [18:07:06] Demiurge1000: I think you mean, omg, some is impersonating Philippe! [18:07:16] *someone [18:07:18] answer: yes, and it's ragesoss [18:07:32] Certain Wikipedia policies, such as [[WP:ELNO]] and [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] specifically point out that Wikipedia should not contain "content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida (since Wikipedia's servers are located there)." Does the data center migration thing change this? [18:07:37] We have chosen to litigate aggresively internationally and to date the court results have been quite solid, often supporting not only WMF but also Wikimedia values, such as the CC license. [18:08:07] gbrigham: Thanks. And congratulations. [18:08:15] We should avoid violating Florida law, but, to be frank, we need to think beyond Florida law as well. [18:08:30] That is true whether or not our servers are in Florida. [18:08:36] We generally require adherence to U.S. law. [18:08:53] So the new data centers will not change our approach. [18:09:10] Would it change the wording? [18:09:26] gbrigham: I'm certainly not suggesting that we should violate laws as long as we're in the clear with Florida, but are the wording of those policies still accurate? [18:09:48] Yes ... I would recommend that we encourage adherence to U.S. law, which is consistent with our language in the Terms of Use. Indeed, the Terms of Use provides model language. [18:10:12] I guess the main thing is something like obscenity, would the standards that Virginia apply differ significantly from Florida? [18:10:19] Good question [18:10:41] Possibly. Courts will look at it on a case-by-case basis. [18:10:44] @tommorris +1 [18:10:44] last time I looked at US obscenity law, it was based around the moral standards of a community. [18:11:03] tommorris, thats what i thought [18:11:04] But big picture the standards are the same. How a jury applies those standards will vary not only by state but by court. [18:11:08] but then I'm just a dude with a laptop in the UK. ;-) [18:11:36] Dudes with laptops in UK know a heck about U.S. law ... is my experience. [18:11:37] so would the best solution be to drop the specific state language and just say, eg, "...content that is illegal to access in the United States"? [18:11:49] Probably ... [18:11:56] What jury would find against Wikipedia? :-) [18:11:58] after all, US-illegal content won't magically be not-illegal in FL or VA ;-) [18:12:00] @gbrigham - "But big picture the standards are the same"??? Can you please clarify? [18:12:04] gbrigham: not nearly as much as I know about British copyright law. but anyway. [18:12:15] The Miller test applies across the entire country. [18:12:30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [18:12:38] There is a community element which leaves discretion to the jury in practice. [18:12:43] @gbrigham - Yes, but _Miller_ test has the "community standards" prong [18:13:46] true, though the other 2 prongs are going to be generally the same everywhere [18:14:00] shimgray: But I think it was worded that way in case Florida has some more specific laws than the United States in general. [18:14:06] *nods* [18:14:39] (and all 3 prongs have to be met) [18:14:43] But I don't live in Florida or Virginia, so I know nothing about the laws there. [18:14:45] so, I guess the only important question is: in your legal opinion, does the shift across state lines to VA change any possible consequences that might befall either WMF or contributors? [18:14:53] I'm pretty sure the WMF would have already considered that question. ;-) [18:15:14] I'm not worried about the differences between Virginia and Florida law. [18:15:25] * Risker wonders who this Philippe character is who keeps coming and going [18:15:30] * Philippe holds on, I think I'm actually logged on now. I dislike the compu-tron machine. [18:15:50] it is a fickle beast. [18:15:59] * jeromyu Poke Phillipe, do check mail lol [18:16:12] jeromyu: I will, I preume one of the 3,000 is from you? :) [18:16:14] As the Terms of Use points out, however, the applicable law will depend on the circumstances - and may not be limited to the location of the servers. [18:16:15] * SteveMobile thinks Philippe doesn't use irc often [18:16:24] SteveMobile: you think wrong. [18:16:29] SteveMobile, I think it's just his computer hates IRC [18:16:34] Hah [18:16:39] and our wireless network [18:16:40] it has problems with -en-admins too [18:16:50] Philippe: One of those 3000 is from me too :p [18:16:55] For that reason, we do require adherence to U.S. law and the Terms of Use caution users about the possibility of their own courts trying to impose their laws. [18:16:59] thanks gbrigham, that's something important for us to keep in mind [18:17:01] Phillipe, you should really look carefully to mine, really important lol [18:17:01] gbrigham: here's an interesting question. Canada is contemplating instigating an Open Government License (Canada). It'd be like the UK version of the Open Government License, which is just a localised version of CC BY for government stuff. does LCA at WMF have any plans to contribute to a consultation on convincing the Canucks to open their government content up? [18:17:28] that question may also be for Philippe. ;-) [18:17:51] Stephen handles our policy issues so I will punt to him. [18:17:55] Isn't that my queue to drop offline then? :) [18:18:14] ooooh yeah, that one's Stephen. :) [18:18:16] * jeromyu also pokes MatthewARoth and Jay Walsh :) for something, Email [18:18:32] or might that be something we just say is within the remit of WM Canada [18:19:07] tommorris: We have a guideline that explains our policy for work with affiliate organizations. [18:19:28] SickPanda: Not feeling well? Ate some bad bamboo? [18:19:45] do the LCA keep track of governments that have consultations regarding open government data and either talk to them or nudge chapters and local communities into talking to them? [18:19:48] For example, if there was community interest, it is something we would consider. [18:19:48] SteveMobile: 36 hours up at a hackathon, including 30 cups of various types of Tea :) [18:20:21] We have an advocacy advisors email list, and this would be a great topic for that gorup [18:20:24] the UK OGL means we have lots and lots of photos on Commons taken by people working for government, sorta like US gov public domain. getting other governments to do likewise would be useful [18:20:28] Maybe getting WM Canada involved would be a good idea [18:20:38] Here is a link to that group: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors [18:20:55] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline [18:21:00] and link to the policy [18:21:04] That is true. Our advocacy email list is becoming more active and raises many interesting policy issues. I would encourage people to join and participate. [18:21:22] We have limited resources and policy participation is a high resource endeavor. [18:21:46] But as we have shown with SOPA, we will be responsive to community requests in this area. [18:21:50] I think the portion of the community which wasn't too happy about things like the SOPA Initiative might be more happy to see WMF LCA productively contribute to government policy initatives before they reach the point where we have to threaten blackouts [18:22:07] Yep. [18:22:28] That is one reason we put together the policy and political affiliations guidelines. [18:22:33] @gbrigham - err, did you misspelling "Google" for "community requests there? [18:22:44] We wanted to put in a process that required community input and review when appropriate. [18:22:48] Seth. [18:23:12] @Philippe - sorry. shouldn't have. [18:25:19] I'm interested in what people think of the proposed Conflict of Interest Guidelines that are now under community consultation. (Maggie provided the link above.) [18:25:37] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest [18:25:55] Meta version: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest [18:26:40] @gbrigham - I think the devil is in the details, as to what is "WMF" resources [18:27:01] We provide examples of such resources in the guidelines. [18:27:18] gbrigham, are they still under consultation, "We anticipate closing the comment period on January 15, 2013" -> did you extend this? [18:27:20] @gbrigham - Yes, but the examples don't cover the hard cases [18:27:35] * Nemo_bis missed the deadline [18:27:42] Yeah what are "movement resources" [18:27:50] Some of the examples include "grants, staff time, scholarships, trademark licenses, travel reimbursements, fellowships, employment, and conference resources" [18:28:07] So, mostly money [18:28:10] Movement resources: money, servers, Jimbo's beard and Sue's relentless enthusiasm. [18:28:12] Sorry, but I'd like to back up for a second to address Seth's comments about SOPA. [18:28:13] Right. [18:28:17] Seth, I'm going to address you on this right now. I am one of the admins who closed that discussion, and I can tell you that the WMF was pretty freaked out at our interpretation of the consensus on that discussion. And I can guarantee you google never came near any of us who closed the discussion. [18:28:26] We are not tackling the "paid editing" issue in these guidelines. [18:28:29] tommorris: :) [18:28:38] Shouldn't we? [18:28:46] Risker: you are a shill of Big Pharma--I mean, Big Internet. [18:28:56] I'm mostly concerned about making sure that resources bought with donor money are subject to proactive disclosures of conflicts of interest. [18:29:21] Makes sense, I guess [18:29:36] @Risker - With respect, do you really want to take the time to go over this? I can rebut, but I'm *trying* not to be perceived as campaigning. [18:29:40] After those disclosures are made, the organization can then decide what to do. Sometimes it will require an independent evaluation as to whether the resources should be allocated as originally planned. [18:29:51] So, Guideline Three says "Answer fully and honestly any relevant and appropriate questions" - questions *from whom*? [18:30:14] In most cases from the relevant decision-maker. [18:30:24] WMF about what the money had been used for? [18:30:24] @Risker - for exmaple, this is straw man "And I [18:30:24] +can guarantee you google never came near any of us who closed the discussion" [18:30:27] If you are applying for a grant, you should answer the questions honestly. [18:30:47] Seth, I think you made your point, Risker answered it, and neither of you is likely to be moved from your position. Maybe let's just agree that it's not the topic of the day? [18:31:25] because I care a lot more if, oh, Philippe calls up a Wikimedia chapter and says "what the fuck were you thinking?" than some random IP troll on Meta six month down the line gets his panties in a bunch about a chapter spending too much money on a sandwich. [18:32:12] heh, thanks, tom. I rate somewhere above random IP troll... [18:32:13] Not that Philippe would swear at any of our fine Chapter representatives for incompetence. That is obviously unnecessary. [18:32:13] No - that is why the guideline says "relevant and appropriate" questions. [18:32:33] from whom also strikes me as important, because peole frequently sock to avoid personal responsibility while creating maximum chaos. [18:32:35] Philippe usually yells at me for incompetence. [18:32:45] I rarely yell. I throw things. [18:32:47] or anything at all [18:32:53] Hah [18:32:56] My head still hurts. [18:33:00] Like, throw a tantrum? [18:33:01] You deserved it. [18:33:02] tommorris: Personally, I think the answer is implied in the "decision-maker or supervisor in charge of the allocation of the movement resources in question" bit above. :) [18:33:12] Or, tables? [18:33:19] Hulk MAD. [18:33:24] Hah [18:33:25] @Philippe - Sort-of agreed. Note, I apologized for the "Google" jibe. I think the issue casts a big shadow over the discussions now, but I am not trying to refight that specific battle here. [18:33:31] what about poor Rory? [18:33:38] mdennis: Indeed. [18:33:51] philippe would never harm rory [18:33:52] Rory is going through growing pains as the first tiger lawyer. [18:33:53] "big shadow" lol. OMG we're in Mordor. [18:34:02] gbrigham, just in case you missed my question earlier: are they still under consultation, "We anticipate closing the comment period on January 15, 2013" -> did you extend this, or are you happy with the level of comments you've received thus far? [18:34:13] What's Rory's win-loss ratio [18:34:19] I like the level of comments. [18:34:29] Rory has never lost. I'm thinking about suggesting to Sue that he's made G.C. [18:34:35] I think people have made really thoughtful suggestions, which I have incorporated as much as possible. [18:34:46] The guidelines are better because of the community consultation. [18:34:58] We did get some professional translations. [18:35:01] Heh, at least Rory would never disagree with you, Philippe [18:35:09] You'd think, but.... [18:35:12] and have provided them to the community and have posted them. [18:35:28] The recommendations look good [18:35:30] So I want to keep the discussion open for another month or so to ensure we have the international input. [18:35:36] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Rory btw [18:35:52] As long as they're in plain English [18:35:52] This is the big challenge for me ... improving international participation in these legal consultations. [18:35:54] you really have one [18:36:07] gbrigham: am I right in inferring that the new liaison team LCA is hiring will help with that? [18:36:17] sumanah: that's the goal. :) [18:36:18] Yes. [18:36:24] Philippe ... take that one. [18:36:27] sorry I mean "Community Advocate (Languages)" from https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings [18:36:51] Well, taht's exactly it - the goal of those hires is to find ways to make sure the voices of our international community are reflecting in that type of discussion. [18:36:58] * SteveMobile likes Philippe about that [18:37:02] Pokes [18:37:09] BTW how is that hiring going? Do you have enough leads or would you like for us to be reaching out more to get more candidates? [18:37:38] sumanah: I'm definitely interested in any high quality candidates that would be interested. I've got a couple of great ideas, but am always open to more. [18:37:44] Some more obscure languages would be tough to find? [18:37:48] Actually it is a nasty internal fight between Rory and me for the GC position. [18:37:56] He is always trying to make me look bad [18:38:00] SteveMobile: http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oUFVWfwa&c=qSa9VfwQ "The advocates speak and write fluently in at least two targeted languages, including French, German, Japanese, Polish, Spanish, Italian, and Russian. " [18:38:06] gbrigham: would you say the claws have come out? :P [18:38:11] by looking so wise by being so silent at meetings. [18:38:45] It is quite nasty. I tried not feeding him for a few weeks, but I later found out that he doesn't eat. [18:38:48] sumanah: At the rate I'm going with Dora the Explorer, I'll speak fluent Spanish in no time :D [18:38:58] I hadn't realized till just now that the required qualifications include: fluent communication in English + 2 target languages, and *native* speaker of at least 1 of the target languages [18:39:19] * sumanah had not been reading the job description closely enough! [18:39:21] Ohh, neither did I [18:39:26] Yep... we're really looking for that level of competency. I've been pleased with the candidates we've seen. [18:39:48] Look for someone that knows all of them? [18:39:53] that's great. Do you think they'll all start at once, or you'll bring them on board a little more staggered? [18:39:54] I think it's really important that they be able to reflect accurately not just an academic view of the language but an actual understanding of the communities behind them. [18:40:04] I think that would be asking for a lot SteveMobile [18:40:05] Not sure, sumanah, that will depend on timing. [18:40:13] Sure, understandable [18:40:40] We're at the 20 minute mark, folks. [18:40:42] * sumanah is eager for them to start :-) [18:40:53] I'd also like to say..... [18:41:00] if you're interested in that type of work as a volunteer, contact me. [18:41:04] I can put you to work today. :) [18:41:23] QUESTION: Is OTRS upgrade (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22622#c40 ) a priority, who's responsible for it? As in, who defines if it's a priority or something that can wait for two more years if the volunteer fails to upgrade or whatever? And who's supposed to test bugs in OTRS component against current and new release to see what are still current and/or would be fixed by upgrade? And what do you think https://bugzilla.wikime [18:41:30] Hi Nemo_bis, that's a great question. [18:41:37] looking forward to working with them as well. I think there will be a lot of overlap with our work for example. [18:41:57] The OTRS upgrade is sitting with tech right now. CT keeps sending me updates, but the labs environment is prepared. [18:42:01] Nemo_bis: your line got cut off at the end for me at "And what do you think https://bugzilla.wikim" [18:42:21] sumanah: thanks, And what do you think https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44146 [18:42:30] Will spam be improved? [18:42:33] There's no question that I wish it were moving faster - it's a source of frustration for me - but I think people are awakened to the issue now, and we're getting some good support from Ops. [18:43:06] As for responsibility, the answer is "well, tech owns the upgrade path, but overall, I'm the contact for the customer service side." [18:43:12] In other words, it's shared responsibility. [18:43:35] This is unsatisfactory, IMHO. [18:43:52] (The shared responsibility.) [18:43:57] Speaking very frankly, I share your frustration. [18:44:43] Engineering is in the midst of a major upgrade path right now, with limited resources and other constraints of their own, and one of the things that we've done very well over the years is "make it work." I think that we did such an excellent job of that that there wasn't a sufficient sense of urgency. [18:44:47] That sense of urgency is there now. [18:44:53] There is also an ongoing discussion about the naming of thematic organizations. I would encourage people to participate in this discussion. [18:44:56] * shimgray notes that it is almost exactly a year since Philippe and he had this same conversation in London [18:45:11] Maggie set out the link above. [18:45:16] glad to see there is some more movement on OTRS this time :-) [18:45:22] shimgray: me too. [18:45:41] Philippe: so, if OTRS upgraded needed some external help/financial investment, who would decide it? [18:45:50] Engineering would be responsible for that. [18:45:56] (Not that I want to keep the conversation on this topic for much longer.) [18:45:58] Meaning, likely CT or Erik. [18:45:59] Hm. [18:46:09] Ok. [18:46:28] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations#Additional_thoughts_in_the_naming_of_thematic_organizations_and_user_groups [18:46:37] Nemo_bis: I will tell you that the pricing that we got was nearly a million dollars. That's why it's so important that we got volunteer help from the developer of OTRS. [18:47:03] Wow [18:47:07] Yup. [18:47:21] That volunteer aid is really important, and we owe Martin (who leads OTRS) a line of thanks for that. [18:47:25] Is it worth that sort of investment? [18:47:37] SteveMobile: Luckily, the volunteer help will preclude that. [18:47:47] Geoff, I think it is a bad idea to grant marks or permit the use of "wikimedia" or similar names to thematic groups [18:48:28] Good :). Otrs sucks right now, but a million dollars.... [18:48:42] the naming question is one of the bigger blockers for there being not many/any of the new types of groups approved yet [18:49:20] I think thoughtful people can disagree on this topic, but I am concerned about over use of "Wikimedia." [18:49:34] included in the naming a number of questions of principle on where thematic organizations fit into the movement [18:50:12] My thinking is that there is actually very little connection between the Thorgs and wikimedia. If they don't succeed in getting funding from WMF, then there's no tie that binds [18:50:40] (e.g. should they have the level of exclusivity as chapters; should the names be chosen in a way to allow future groups in the same theme, etc.) [18:50:44] I am concerned about legal issues, but also "exclusivity" in our naming practices. [18:51:19] For example, we need to realize that our movement is bigger than (1) one project; (2) one language; (3) one geography. [18:52:25] 'merican English Wikipedia, Inc. [18:52:44] Personally, I don't think a thematic organization should claim the universal "Wikimedia" name unless they are able to address all projects, all languages, and all geographies. [18:52:55] Otherwise the name should be tailored to the work they are actually doing. [18:52:56] ragesoss, wrong, British of course :) [18:53:04] As 'merican as [[Apple Pie]]....? I remember locking down that article once, Ragesoss, to keep Seddon from editing it. on the Fourth of July. From my apartment. [18:53:15] Clearly WMUK should actually be Britimedia UK then :) [18:53:24] I don't think they should get it regardless, Geoff. There's no thematic group that can meet that standard. [18:53:34] BritiWiki. Err. [18:53:45] I don't think we can reasonably expect any group to meet that standard [18:54:19] (probably not chapters, and if we discount the servers one has to think hard what the WMF does for some of the very small projects) [18:54:25] Austramedia AU sounds silly [18:54:40] Servers are pretty important to a web site. [18:54:48] discounting the servers, the software, the legal defense.... [18:54:58] SteveMobile: at least comfort yourself with the knowledge that micronesiamedia is sillier. [18:55:09] :) sorry for being snarky Bence. [18:55:10] ... the roads, the sewers... what have the Romans ever done for us? [18:55:21] lol@Demiurge1000 [18:55:22] :) [18:55:25] Heh [18:55:35] Five minutes, folks. [18:55:42] * Risker likes the new snarky gbrigham, who starves Rory and dukes it out for the GC role [18:55:43] sure, but that seems more an extension of things already done -- not sure how often does WMF buy new servers just for Wikispecies [18:55:46] (thanks for holding this, colleagues!) [18:56:01] If we're going to be the romans, I'd very much like to be called Caesar. Or some other kickass title. [18:56:04] I spend time on its trademarks. [18:56:12] I spend time on domain names. [18:56:24] I spend time on defending all projects in foreign courts. [18:56:30] (and I don't intend to take away the WMF's W) [18:56:32] I spend time on supporting its community. :) I get the emails with questions, etc.... [18:56:37] What's in the cards for LCA in the near future? [18:56:44] I spend time on policies, like the Terms of Use, that apply to all projects. [18:56:51] (On) [18:57:06] So, some BLP subject's "representative" who emailed me, is apparently confused/unhappy about the print-on-demand "Articles by Wikipedia" spam book people on Amazon etc. And he writes "as you may know many of the earlier pages (he means revisions) about (name) were libelous and defamatory... fortunately these were mainly corrected. but if this book contains all these libels,(name) will... [18:57:08] ...obviously want to take legal action against the writers, but not hurt Wikipedia, what is the best way to do this?" [18:57:19] Actually ... Bence knows I have incredible respect for him and his work. [18:57:39] But I do think we can fairly say that the WMF supports all projects on a regular basis. [18:57:41] Demiurge, that's a very good (and complex) question. Can I suggest that you email me the specifics and let's figure out a good response? [18:57:47] What I've advised him first off is that any such book-on-demand material is likely printed when it's ordered, therefore won't be from old (defamatory) revisions [18:57:47] I claim Hongkongmedia HK lol [18:57:49] Philippe: ok [18:58:06] Philippe: I was going to ask if it's easier to just fob him off as I have done :D [18:58:07] gbrigham, don't forget the privacy policy in the not too distant future? [18:58:08] Demiurge1000: I believe they're printed from a single snapshot not built on the fly [18:58:10] Demiurge, not to minimize the question, it's a big one that I deal with frequently. [18:58:23] Bence: never, because wikispecies isn't big enough to justify unique slaves. It lives on slaves with other small projects. [18:58:27] ok, will drop you an email [18:58:28] (I've got one on my desk at work, I keep meaning to check the dates) [18:58:31] Which I suspect both answers and undermines your question ;p [18:58:45] OK, I'm afraid we need to wrap up [18:58:51] Everyone ... thanks so much for joining. [18:58:59] thanks for the updates, 'tis interesting [18:59:09] I cannot tell you how much of an honor it is to work with you and the movement. [18:59:09] thanks for your time, LCA folks :) [18:59:13] I'm glad I could finally get in for this one, thank you all for putting up with my incessant joins and parts earlier. [18:59:17] Thank you for that privilege. [18:59:25] :) [18:59:27] +1 gbrigham [18:59:35] thank you very much for your time, gbrigham and Philippe :) [18:59:44] :) [18:59:46] Could someone who has a full log email it to me? [18:59:47] or post it? [18:59:49] gbrigham: I know exactly how you feel [18:59:53] @gbrigham Thanks for this. You're very polite and patient. [19:00:07] are you planning to do this on a regular basis? [19:00:19] Philippe: will email it just now [19:00:25] Sounds like a great topic for the next IRC, Thehelpfulone. [19:00:27] Nicole_WMDE: yes. :) A few times a year, most likely. [19:00:32] the point is that I see a difference between providing opportunities for all projects, actively ignoring them and actively working on them; the WMF is definitely not actively ignoring them; but when looking at thorgs and chapters this is more the scale to look at and I see it as unrealistic for any group to actively work on 800 projects [19:00:34] Thanks, shimgray [19:00:45] Philippe k, thx! :) [19:00:49] OK, folks, I have a meeting.... ya'll have a great time-of-day! [19:00:54] Turrah [19:01:50] mdennis: I saw Rkwon's answer about the Metawiki logo [19:01:59] mdennis: can you tell us when it was registered as a trademark? [19:02:27] Hi, odder. I'll have to ask. I'm afraid that I don't know. :) [19:02:30] I'll see what I can find out. [19:02:46] thanks a lot :-) [19:03:26] Bye [19:06:31] * fabriceferrer fouette Elfix kunu