Open Board meeting, November 2004
A meeting was held on IRC on November 6 to discuss new project policy, new language Wikipedia policy, and grants. The meeting was open to anyone. The full transcript is included below. Times are UTC. An agenda was published at board agenda.
[20:00] <dannyisback> hello all
[20:00] <dannyisback> it is time
[20:00] <Angela> hi
[20:01] <Xirzon> hi danny, hi everyone
[20:01] <AndreSt> hi
[20:01] <waerth> am I allowed to watch?
[20:01] <dannyisback> of course, waerth
[20:01] <sannse> it's an open meeting waerth
[20:01] <Xirzon> should we announce this meeting on #wikipedia?
[20:02] <dannyisback> yes
[20:07] * Angela changes topic to 'Wikimedia Foundation | Brainstorming discussion on the Foundation's Three Year Plan, 6 November, 20:00 UTC | Please read the agenda and related pages at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda | This channel will be logged on Meta'
[20:08] <yannf> hi all
[20:08] <jwales> hi
[20:08] <jwales> Are we called to order here?
[20:09] <dannyisback> yup
[20:09] <dannyisback> let's begin
[20:09] <jwales> Anthere is going first, with new project policy?
[20:09] <elian> yep
[20:09] <Angela> as soon as you all stop arguing in #wikimedia...
[20:09] <elian> Angela: I'll try ;-)
[20:10] <Anthere> is everyone here ?
[20:10] <paddyez> jo litening
[20:10] <dannyisback> where's grunt
[20:10] <dannyisback> he will kick himself for missing the meeting
[20:11] <jwales> I left the channel over there.
[20:11] <jwales> I apologize for getting into all that now.
[20:11] <Anthere> as a reminder
[20:11] <Anthere> is everyone aware of this ? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda
[20:11] <Anthere> I made a proposal for new projects
[20:12] <Anthere> this is the only part of this meeting with a direction really
[20:12] <Anthere> but I think it is important
[20:12] <Anthere> since we have a new project coming
[20:12] <Anthere> so, I made a proposal here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_agenda#New_project_policy
[20:12] <Xirzon> I presume you are talking about Wikinews .. are there any other projects in the pipeline likely to happen soon?
[20:13] <Anthere> not that I know really
[20:13] <Angela> that depends whether Wikijunior is seen as a project
[20:13] <Anthere> are there some ?
[20:13] <dannyisback> there have been some suggestions though
[20:13] <dannyisback> and some of the suggestions are quite good
[20:13] <jwales> I think it's more a question, not of wikinews, but just that we need a more clear set of conditions and policies to guide this generally.
[20:13] <Anthere> nod
[20:13] <Anthere> so, please, see hte policy
[20:13] <Xirzon> just to clarify, I understand it that the new project policy is only to be applied to wikinews insofar as the final decision about wikinews will be made by the board, which is also what the proposed policy says
[20:13] <Anthere> with general view
[20:13] <jwales> The wikispecies fiasco showed how important it is for it not to be vague.
[20:13] <Anthere> not only thinking for wikinews
[20:13] <jwales> Yes, right.
[20:14] <Anthere> the proposal is here
[20:14] <Anthere> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
[20:14] <Xirzon> one aspect of the proposal that is not clear to me is where to announce new projects - right now it says "the mailing lists", but not which
[20:14] <Xirzon> we have discussed in the past whether we need a specific announce mailing list
[20:14] <Angela> Foundation-l
[20:14] <Xirzon> I would like some resolution to that question
[20:14] <jwales> I'm satisfied just with that the board will vote as a formality on wikinews and set the start date, and the rest of what has gone is actually a reasonable model for going forward, though we may of course want to change some things based on what we've learned.
[20:15] <Anthere> right now the suggeston is meta and foundation
[20:15] <elian> that should be enough
[20:15] <avar> Will wikinews be in multiple languages to begin with? Just the biggest ones or has that not even been decided yet?
[20:15] <elian> avar: the discussion is not about wikinews
[20:15] <dannyisback> one point is that i think we can lock projects that do not take off without actually turning them off
[20:15] <Xirzon> avar: a matter for #wikinews really
[20:16] <dannyisback> just as we are doing for languages
[20:16] <Anthere> do you think more mailing lists should be send to as well ?
[20:16] <Xirzon> I personally favor an email@example.com , with all unique current subscribers being invited to join
[20:16] <elian> the policy is the required minimum
[20:16] <Xirzon> all unique current subscribers to any mailing list, that is
[20:16] <Anthere> nod
[20:16] <Angela> I don't think that would help
[20:16] <Anthere> we can make it policy that meta and foundation are minimum
[20:17] <Xirzon> which place on meta - Wikimedia News and Goings-on?
[20:17] <Anthere> and let it to creators to choose other lists if they wish
[20:17] <Anthere> and later annoucement list if created
[20:17] <Anthere> goings on
[20:17] <elian> Xirzon: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
[20:17] <Anthere> yup
[20:17] <Xirzon> ok
[20:17] <Angela> the only part of the proposal I was unsure about was whether we needed to specify " the board will take a decision... within the next 15 days."
[20:17] <jwales> Yes, basically such things should be given wide exposure -- the details of how may vary in some cases, depending on where we think interested parties might be.
[20:17] <elian> Goings-On? you don't really wnat that
[20:18] <jwales> For example, if a new project seemed to be directly complementary to wiktionary (I have no idea what this might be, just an example), they should be notified as well.
[20:18] <GerardM_> I do
[20:18] <Xirzon> jwales: makes sense
[20:18] <Anthere> Angela I think a maximal time should be given
[20:18] <Angela> Why 15 days? Are there not situations where it might need longer than that?
[20:18] <elian> we have one problem, however
[20:19] <Anthere> we may extend the date of course
[20:19] <elian> have you looked in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_projects ?
[20:19] <Angela> Things might need to be done (software changes etc) before the board can make that decision, and that could take more than 15 days
[20:19] <jwales> More direct example: Cantonese. Clearly, a proper approval process on this would have to include zh.wikipedia.org
[20:19] <Xirzon> Angela: at least the proposer should have *some* information on what's going on within a reasonable timeframe
[20:19] <Xirzon> so they're not left hanging
[20:20] <Anthere> elian : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
[20:20] <Anthere> this should be the correct place
[20:20] <Anthere> and the creator should add a category link
[20:20] <elian> we currently have more than 20 proposals
[20:20] <Anthere> jwales, this is not a new project
[20:20] <Anthere> it is a new language
[20:20] <elian> wikiblubb, wikibla...
[20:20] <jwales> On the board action within 15 days, we can just say that the board will respond within 15 days. Responding might mean "yes" or (rarely, I hope, if the community has supported it) "wait, we have to address this concern first".
[20:21] <Angela> Ok
[20:21] <Anthere> agreed
[20:21] <jwales> Anthere: ok, I see what you mean.
[20:21] <Anthere> new language might be different procedure
[20:21] <elian> okay, let's distinguish clearly between new language and new project policy
[20:22] <dannyisback> definitely
[20:22] <jwales> certainly
[20:22] <Angela> many languages are not going to need a vote
[20:22] <Xirzon> and in new language, we need to distinguish between "new language from the set of approved languages for an existing project", or "new language altogether"
[20:22] <elian> languages shouldn't need a vote
[20:22] <dannyisback> what about conlangs?
[20:22] <elian> the approved langs
[20:23] <jwales> I agree with everyone. :-)
[20:23] <Anthere> I updated the page
[20:23] <Xirzon> for example, wikinews might not have a zh: version at first, but might have later - the rules for starting a new language version for an existing project should be clear
[20:23] <GerardM_> Yes they do. Certainly with the new ISO 639 list featuring languages as Stellingwerfs
[20:23] <waerth> languages like cantonese should be accepted without problems
[20:23] <elian> can we discuss languages later please?
[20:23] <Anthere> the proposal is not about languages
[20:24] <Anthere> can you look at the proposal again please ?
[20:24] <Anthere> are they any concern ?
[20:24] <Anthere> what do we say about board feedback ?
[20:24] <Anthere> I am fine with more than 15 days
[20:24] <Anthere> but poeple should be given feedback
[20:24] <Xirzon> 15 days is good as response time
[20:24] <Anthere> not wait for days with no answer
[20:24] <Angela> I changed that section to "After the poll is closed, the board will respond within the next 15 days to state whether the project has been accepted or whether more time is needed to address concerns/ make software changes first."
[20:25] <jwales> Anthere is right. Angela's wording is good.
[20:25] <elian> yep
[20:25] <jwales> It gives flexibility, but also a promise of action.
[20:25] <dannyisback> what is the url again?
[20:25] <Anthere> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
[20:25] <sannse> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
[20:25] <dannyisback> there was a piece at the bottom about what happens if the project fails
[20:25] <dannyisback> i propose locking
[20:26] <Anthere> what is failing ?
[20:26] <Anthere> how do you define it ?
[20:26] <dannyisback> it now says:
[20:26] <dannyisback> If there's no or very little editing on the new project for several months, or if the reports stop coming in, or if generally the thing just starts winding down, the wiki goes inactive. We turn off the wiki software, and make the content available in case someone else wants to use it.
[20:26] <Anthere> Hmmm
[20:26] <dannyisback> we can simply lock the project to avoid vandalism
[20:26] <Anthere> I am worried about reporting thing
[20:26] <Xirzon> "the reports stop coming in"?
[20:26] <elian> dannyisback: I think it depends on the case
[20:27] <Xirzon> what does that mean?
[20:27] <jwales> I posted something to the mailing list on that topic (but I was thinking of languages when I wrote it). Basically, locking is a "hard" rather than a "soft" solution.
[20:27] <jwales> Xirzon: it means we haven't heard from anyone in a long time, no one is editing, etc.
[20:27] <Angela> Xirzon: there is a proposal that projects need to report on their activities
[20:27] <Anthere> yes, I do not like locking very much personnaly
[20:27] <brion> Is this locking thing necessary, or would better reporting tools be better? (eg, making it easy to watch a large number of wikis for vandalism)
[20:27] <Anthere> Angela, waht will happen if no one on major project do any report ?
[20:27] <dannyisback> the thing with locking is that the information is available
[20:27] <Anthere> do we close them ?
[20:27] <Angela> brion: better tools would help
[20:27] <jwales> In the case of a language, if there's one person who is trying to recruit people, all they'd need to say is "I'm still looking for help, and i'm policing for vandalism every 3 days" or whatever.
[20:27] <dannyisback> and we avoid spam
[20:28] <elian> brion: locking is a clean solution.
[20:28] <Anthere> locking is a hard solution
[20:28] <Xirzon> I'm against locking if we can avoid it
[20:28] <dannyisback> jimbo, node will say that on every language
[20:28] <Anthere> I do not like it
[20:28] <GerardM_> One thing that is important is the regular activity of a sysop on a project. They are the first line against vandalism
[20:28] <jwales> brion: yes, would help.
[20:28] <Angela> dannyisback: agreed
[20:28] <elian> if there's only spam, a wiki doesn't attract a community
[20:28] <jwales> danny: good point.
[20:28] <brion> making sure no one *can* help the project is not clean, imho
[20:28] <sannse> one person who speaks the language
[20:28] <Anthere> and in making it, you are all collectively thinking ONLY on node
[20:28] <Anthere> I regret this
[20:28] <Xirzon> I also think we should kill projects altogether at some point
[20:28] <jwales> This is where rules can't surpass human judgment, although the rules should be as clear as possible.
[20:28] <GerardM_> There is also squatting ..
[20:28] <Xirzon> I would like to kill sep11 completely, for instance
[20:29] <jwales> <pov>Klingon must die!</pov>
[20:29] <Xirzon> and Klingon too, yes
[20:29] <dannyisback> we have a problem with nauruanese for instance
[20:29] <dannyisback> which should be locked because now someone is squatting there
[20:29] <Anthere> now, I think we are thinking of closing languages
[20:29] <Anthere> not project
[20:29] <Angela> That should be deleted
[20:29] <jwales> did everyone see my mailing list post about this topic of locking?
[20:29] <Xirzon> so how do we go about killing projects?
[20:29] <Anthere> and project is the current topic of discussion
[20:29] <dannyisback> i saw it
[20:29] <Xirzon> jwales: not yet
[20:29] <dannyisback> it applies to projects as well, anthere
[20:29] <elian> remove the wiki and make the content available for download if there's valuable content
[20:30] <jwales> Well, basically I just catalogued some thoughts about softer measures than locking.
[20:30] <jwales> But, locking will work, and is available to us now.
[20:30] <Xirzon> OK, I just read it
[20:30] <Xirzon> agreed
[20:30] <jwales> And we have an existing problem.
[20:30] <Xirzon> So .. can we conclude: Locking for now, until we have something better?
[20:30] <elian> so far nobody argued against except node
[20:31] <Anthere> I do not see Jimbo proposal...
[20:31] <britty> i think so; even they are locked, people can ask to open them
[20:31] <dannyisback> and the procedure for unlocking should be kept as simple as possible
[20:31] <Anthere> elian thank you
[20:31] <Anthere> I argued against
[20:31] <Anthere> I asked one question
[20:31] <elian> Anthere: which one?
[20:31] <Anthere> and no one answered it
[20:31] <Anthere> I asked what was the procedure to reopen it
[20:31] <jwales> I just agreed with what had been said and added a "wishlist" of software things, like "no external url posting" and "captcha" and "no anons" and "confirm email for signup" -- basically just ways to try to keep it open while keeping vandalism down. (And also "better monitoring tools")
[20:31] <sannse> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/035764.html
[20:31] <Anthere> it was yesterday
[20:31] <dannyisback> contact as steward
[20:32] <dori> wouldn't node just start asking for everything to be unlocked?
[20:32] <Angela> The procedure should be the same as starting a new language
[20:32] <Anthere> you are all collectively thinking ONLY on node
[20:32] <Anthere> and forgetting other options
[20:32] <GerardM_> Request on Meta. One person should take sysop responisiblity
[20:32] <elian> Anthere: the procedure to reopen is that someone comes and wants to start it again
[20:32] <Anthere> `what is the procedure to start a new language ?
[20:32] <elian> and is serious about it
[20:33] <britty> they should have experienced on other wikis? or a newbie can start a wiki too?
[20:33] <dannyisback> we can list contact people in the message
[20:33] <waerth> what if everyone adopted one quiet project?
[20:33] <GerardM_> I would like him to start localise the UI
[20:33] <waerth> like I adopted laotian
[20:33] <Angela> If new languages require 5 people, shouldn't reopening also require that?
[20:33] <dannyisback> there arent enough of us, waerth
[20:33] <waerth> and checks it everyday
[20:33] <Anthere> waerth What do you mean ?
[20:33] <dannyisback> no, i oppose five people
[20:33] <dori> elian: what would be the point of locking them then, the same person who started it will request that it be unlocked
[20:33] <elian> britty: a newbie can start one, too but he should get an advisor
[20:33] <dannyisback> some smaller wikis managed to take off with one dedicated user
[20:33] <waerth> well I am checking laotian pedia everyday for vandalism
[20:33] <waerth> one second
[20:34] <britty> then who will be advisors?
[20:34] <waerth> if you found 50 people checking 2 or 3 pedia's everyday?
[20:34] <waerth> you have your solution!
[20:34] <Anthere> one must know the language...
[20:34] <Looxix> and this is a big problem
[20:34] <waerth> true
[20:34] <britty> waerth, i think every day checking is not necessary
[20:34] <Anthere> imho, 5 is too many
[20:34] <elian> britty: angela, danny and me volunteered so far
[20:34] <waerth> but blatant vandalism can be stopped
[20:34] <jwales> Well, if people can be found for checking, then the locking wouldn't happen anyway I think.
[20:34] <Xirzon> dannyisback: a 5 people requirement is good in order to prevent the use of wikis for purposes beyond our control or understanding, because we don't know what's going on there
[20:35] <Angela> you can check for a lot of vandalism without knowing the language
[20:35] <dannyisback> xircon, for smaller languages, it may be excessive at first
[20:35] <yannf> waerth, checking for an active wiki is fine, but checking a dead wiki is boring
[20:35] <britty> agreed and in my experience monthly checking works well
[20:35] <GerardM_> You cannot check NPOV
[20:35] <Xirzon> vandalism is one thing, use of a wiki for slander or propaganda another
[20:35] <dannyisback> i would be happy with one dedicated contributor and common sense
[20:35] <Anthere> Xirzon 5 for small langages is too much
[20:35] <waerth> I know it is boring
[20:35] <elian> dannyisback: me too
[20:35] <jwales> danny: I oppose the 5 people requirement, unless there is an exception for "large languages" defined by a certain number of speakers...
[20:35] <Anthere> people can come one after the other, but no all at once
[20:35] <waerth> but is is easily done and we can stop vandalism that way
[20:36] <britty> i opposed 5
[20:36] <jwales> Which is the opposite point to what you are all making about small languages. ;-)
[20:36] <britty> sw has only one participants in this language but works well
[20:36] <jwales> So I support 5 unless the language is too small or too large. *g*
[20:36] <Anthere> Xirzon, on a small wiki, propaganda does not really have impact :-)
[20:36] <dannyisback> i think we all agree actually
[20:36] <elian> yes
[20:36] <dori> we must also take into account that it's hard to attract editors in smaller wikis, and if they're locked, unless the people are *really* interested and already formed in a group of 5, then the wiki will remain always locked
[20:36] <elian> no requirement of 5
[20:36] <Xirzon> Anthere: true
[20:37] <waerth> dori: true
[20:37] <GerardM_> When a minimum effort has been spent on the UI you know the lanuage is understood. It benefits the project and it is a hurdle.
[20:37] <yannf> waerth, you can't if you have to check 50 wikis, that's the point
[20:37] <elian> but a requirement of commitment and serious effort
[20:37] <Xirzon> Anthere: however, I seem to recall that it was you who asked me to increase the number of minimum contributors for wikinews
[20:37] <Anthere> yes Xirzon
[20:37] <Anthere> notice that wikinews is a new project
[20:37] <Anthere> NOT a new language
[20:37] <Anthere> we have to define new rules
[20:37] <sannse> in the case of languages, we need someone who speaks it
[20:37] <Xirzon> no, the number of minimum contributors per language
[20:37] <Anthere> not just apply already set of rules
[20:38] <Angela> GerardM_: so a requirement should be that they translate the interface first, not that there be a minimum number of people?
[20:38] <Anthere> this is why this discussion is about languages
[20:38] <Anthere> not projects
[20:38] <Xirzon> I'm not sure I follow here - do we want the rule of minimum contributors to be different from project to project?
[20:38] <dannyisback> but anthere, projects can also be locked if they are moribund
[20:38] <jwales> Xirzon: I think that can be the case.
[20:38] <waerth> xirzon: I guess
[20:38] <GerardM_> Yes, if one person wants to start, it is a good start it is a win win
[20:38] <dannyisback> we just have to set the criteria
[20:38] <Anthere> no Xirzon, I think a new language does not require so many contributors than a new project
[20:38] <Xirzon> currently wikinews states:
[20:38] <Xirzon> "However, before a Wikinews language version is officially recognized as a Wikimedia project, and before the first sysop can be appointed, there must at least be 5 participants. This condition is there to prevent a single individual from effectively becoming a "benevolent dictator" in a Wikinews language version."
[20:38] <Xirzon> is this agreeable or not according to the board?
[20:38] <jwales> Xirzon: you have yourself pointed out that wikinews may pose a particular problem for zh, and so...
[20:39] <GerardM_> It can be done in wiktionary. I would help set up the minimum amount of words phrases
[20:39] <Anthere> I'd say wikinews is so little define, a 5 limits is important
[20:39] <Angela> I think a minimum of 5 is more necessary for Wikinews than Wikipedia
[20:39] <dori> Xirzon: in the case of wikinews, NPOV and verifiability can be bigger problems
[20:39] <Anthere> while wikipedia is already 4 year old
[20:39] <Angela> agreed dori
[20:39] <Anthere> and lots of expereience
[20:39] <jwales> It depends on the context of the project I think.
[20:39] <Xirzon> OK, so what we just talked about really only applied to wikipedia?
[20:39] <waerth> jwales: not just zh .... th and other countries with questionable governments can get problems
[20:39] <dannyisback> the thing with wikinews is that for it to be effective, it should report every day
[20:39] <elian> so it depends on the sort of projects
[20:39] <dannyisback> a new language can be edited once a week and still be effective
[20:40] <Xirzon> OK, so we need to do this on a per-project basis
[20:40] <britty> elian makes a sense
[20:40] <Anthere> what about the board deciding the minimum number of participants on a per case basis ?
[20:40] <jwales> Ok, we should move this discussion to the mailing list, since we've brainstormed some good ideas, to try to get some definition.
[20:40] <jwales> Should we move to the next point soon?
[20:40] <elian> Anthere: I agree
[20:40] <Angela> Anthere: that might make more sense than trying to agree a fixed number now
[20:40] <Anthere> okay
[20:40] <Anthere> do we agree on this ?
[20:40] <dori> argg, not the mailing lists again, at least make it the foundation one, not wikien and wikipedia
[20:40] <dannyisback> one quick point
[20:40] <dannyisback> wikijunior is a wikibook project
[20:40] <Anthere> really ?
[20:41] <elian> so there is no permission needed
[20:41] <dannyisback> yes
[20:41] <jwales> Yes dori: foundation-l.
[20:41] <waerth> no www.wikijunior,org?
[20:41] <Angela> I agree it fits best with Wikibooks rather than being separate
[20:41] <dannyisback> maybe at some later date
[20:41] <dannyisback> but for now, i want to keep it in wikibooks
[20:41] <Anthere> k with me
[20:41] <jwales> *nod*
[20:41] <Xirzon> right now it's just wikireaders, but it could be a wikipedia fork for children at some point
[20:42] <dannyisback> yes, but i dont want to start big and flop
[20:42] <Angela> that would be different from what is currently proposed Xirzon#
[20:42] <dannyisback> i want to start small and grow
[20:42] <jwales> This saves a lot of screaming. People were starting to flip out, but it's quite small what we are asked to accomplish, and not controversial.
[20:42] <Anthere> to finish on first point
[20:42] <Xirzon> I would like to discuss the policy on killing projects. Can we kill projects the same way we start them, i.e. a proposal->discussion->poll->board decision model?
[20:42] <Anthere> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy
[20:42] <elian> there's an easy trait of a new project: if it requires a new domain and a new wiki
[20:42] <elian> Xirzon: too much buerocracy
[20:42] <Angela> Xirzon: That seems fine with me
[20:42] <Anthere> I think erik is right though
[20:42] <Xirzon> elian: what do you suggest then?
[20:43] <dori> Xirzon: I'd say yes, but allow more time for polling on killing than on creation
[20:43] <Anthere> I agree with dori
[20:43] <elian> a poll can be done, but I don't expect very much participation
[20:43] <sannse> there is no rush to kill
[20:43] <dori> also, perhaps not outright kill, as much as put on cryo (i.e. have the dumps saved)
[20:43] <sannse> if there is no participation - that's a good indication that there is no interest
[20:43] <Anthere> it should be both community and board decision
[20:43] <britty> i can't figure why poll is needed
[20:43] <Anthere> yes sannse
[20:43] <Xirzon> so basically a reverse New project policy with a bit larger timeframes
[20:43] <Angela> the poll is for closing projects, not languages
[20:43] <Anthere> poll is needed for the board to know the opinion of the community
[20:44] <elian> Angela: then I agree
[20:44] <yannf> elian, it can be quite the opposite (for klingon, f.e.)
[20:44] <britty> specially a language claimed as 'a dialect' would be opposed by majority
[20:44] <Xirzon> I'd like there to be a poll on killing something like sep11
[20:44] <Xirzon> before the board decides unilaterally
[20:44] <Xirzon> also
[20:44] <GerardM_> You could decide on "economic" moments like when costs are to be made for keeping domainnames. That way it is "reasonable".
[20:44] <Xirzon> the poll gives room for more options
[20:44] <dannyisback> are there any specific projects we are talking about killing?
[20:44] <Xirzon> like "merge into wikipeople and keep for now"
[20:44] <elian> sep11
[20:44] <Xirzon> sep11 would be my first candidate for killing
[20:44] <Anthere> britty, we need the poll because of what erik is saying
[20:44] <Angela> Also, a poll is only needed if there is not already consensus in the discussion stage
[20:44] <Anthere> "unilaterally"
[20:44] <dannyisback> ok, merge into wikipeople is fine
[20:44] <jwales> Xirzon: first? What others?
[20:45] <britty> Anthere, ok now i've got the topic at last
[20:45] <Anthere> :-)
[20:45] <Anthere> erik, what other project to kill ?
[20:45] <Xirzon> jwales: more languages than projects, but I think the procedure is similar
[20:45] <dannyisback> i oppose killing languages
[20:45] <Anthere> me too
[20:45] <jwales> Some languages need killing and soon. Klingon must die. I almost asked a developer to remove it the other day.
[20:45] <elian> dannyisback: even klingon?
[20:45] <Xirzon> oppose killing languages on principle?
[20:45] <Anthere> locking is already hard
[20:45] <Xirzon> that doesn't sound right
[20:45] <dannyisback> klingon isnt a language
[20:45] <Anthere> killing is a no for me
[20:45] <Xirzon> languages must be killable
[20:46] <Xirzon> especially something like toki pona or klingon
[20:46] <Angela> I agree
[20:46] <jwales> danny: ok, then we don't disagree.
[20:46] <dannyisback> i oppose killing living languages with communities of native speakers
[20:46] <Anthere> Klingon is not a language to me :)
[20:46] <Xirzon> well, then we simply have different definitions
[20:46] <dori> not that I want it killed, but simple should also be spun off probably, into a multi-lingual project (perhaps it could be the same as wikijunior or whatever), but it seems weird to me that it's only in english
[20:46] <elian> dannyisback: true. these should only be locked
[20:46] <Anthere> I agree with Danny
[20:46] <Xirzon> but for the sake of our discussion we should define "language" as "wikimedia language domains"
[20:46] <Xirzon> and such languages should be killable
[20:46] <jwales> danny: I agree. If some form of closure for spam is needed, then killing completely is too strong.
[20:47] <avar> What is the big opposition to klingon anyway? I don't really care about it myself but is it really such a big thorn in peoples eyes/waste of resources that it cannot be left to see if it grows further?
[20:47] <dannyisback> we are performing a service to those people who want to keep their languages and cultures alive
[20:47] <sannse> what avar said
[20:47] <Xirzon> let's not talk about klingon
[20:47] <Anthere> agreeed
[20:47] <GerardM_> When can a language become a "wikimedia language domain"
[20:47] <Angela> locked for spam is not the same thnig as removing a language altogether
[20:47] <GerardM_> Also re wiktionary
[20:47] <dannyisback> yup, and wikisource and wikibooks
[20:47] <Xirzon> I just want to be assured that we do not rule out killing language domains
[20:47] <Xirzon> that is very important
[20:47] <sannse> yep - lets not talk about klingon - but lets have a policy that this can happen before it is killed
[20:48] <dannyisback> which language domains do you foresee killing xircon
[20:48] <Xirzon> dannyisback: klingon and possibly other conlangs
[20:48] <waerth> I find killing language domains a bit over the top yes
[20:48] <Xirzon> note - I would support having a single conlang wiki
[20:48] <jwales> For me: klingon and tokipona would be good candidates.
[20:49] <britty> esperanto could survive?
[20:49] <Xirzon> for toki pona there has been virtually no discussion
[20:49] <dannyisback> ok, conlangs i agree with
[20:49] <GerardM_> What about extinct languages ??
[20:49] <Anthere> esperanto SHOULD survive
[20:49] <elian> so we all aggree?
[20:49] <Anthere> it is a vibrant community !
[20:49] <Xirzon> agree on what, elian?
[20:49] <britty> of course
[20:49] <dannyisback> what about lojban?
[20:49] <dannyisback> lobjan?
[20:49] <elian> "real languages" shouldn't be killed
[20:50] <Angela> I don't think there is any suggestion eo should not continue
[20:50] <elian> and conlangs and others may be
[20:50] <britty> but toki-pona is slowly but steadily growing
[20:50] <jwales> The esperanto community is vibrant.
[20:50] <Xirzon> yes, real languages with native speakers shouldn't be killed
[20:50] <britty> agreed
[20:50] <dannyisback> interlingua?
[20:50] <Anthere> azgreed
[20:50] <sannse> but conlangs if they are there should be discussion first
[20:50] <elian> if they don't flourish
[20:50] <dannyisback> a good source of spam??
[20:50] <elian> sannse: agreed.
[20:50] <britty> hmm
[20:50] <Anthere> there seems to be general agreeemnt
[20:51] <Xirzon> OK, so can we agree that there should be a process on killing or merging conlangs, perhaps similar to the general project killing policy?
[20:51] <elian> so, summarizing: killing a language should be done after a poll and be a board decision
[20:51] <Xirzon> good
[20:51] <Anthere> nod
[20:51] <Angela> yes
[20:51] <sannse> *nod*
[20:51] <dannyisback> as long as we state that this does not apply to living languages with native speakers
[20:51] <dori> sue
[20:51] <dori> eh sure
[20:51] <elian> dannyisback: for sure
[20:51] <GerardM_> fine
[20:51] <waerth> k
[20:51] <elian> let's move to the next point?
[20:51] <jwales> And I think we all will agree with this: "If a real language with native speakers has a wikipedia that is being spammed or abused, we should use the softest possible measures to protect it, either locking until someone *reliable* agrees to look after it, or some other softer means."
[20:51] <dannyisme> yes
[20:51] <Looxix> Xirzon: merging conlangs is non sense
[20:51] <elian> jwales: agreed.
[20:51] <sannse> *nod*
[20:52] <Xirzon> jwales: yes
[20:52] <waerth> yes jwales
[20:52] <Angela> yes
[20:52] <Anthere> I'd like to check one thing
[20:52] <Anthere> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy#Closing_of_a_project
[20:52] <Anthere> this is all right to you ?
[20:52] <dannyisme> and the reliable person should be given temp sysop status until a native speaker comes along
[20:52] <jwales> See, I'm good at this consensus thing. ;-)
[20:52] <Xirzon> Looxix: depends on what you mean by merging
[20:52] <waerth> I would be in favour of people adopting slow languages
[20:52] <elian> Anthere: okay
[20:52] <yannf> jwales, ok
[20:52] <dannyisme> i like waerth's idea too
[20:52] <Anthere> if no complain, this point is closed
[20:52] <jwales> next speaker is...
[20:53] <dannyisme> and the ban on _sj_ for coming late is agreed!
[20:53] <jwales> elian
[20:53] <Xirzon> agreed
[20:53] <waerth> I am already looking after one, I could look after Burmese as well
[20:53] <elian> now, Establish a policy for existing and new languages
[20:53] <_sj_> greets from san fran
[20:53] <elian> proposal is to require
[20:53] <elian> a) a contact person
[20:53] <elian> and
[20:53] <elian> b) regular reports
[20:53] <elian> from all projects
[20:53] <dannyisme> quarterly, not monthly
[20:53] <elian> dannyisme: probably
[20:54] <_sj_> depends on siye, surely?
[20:54] <elian> monthly is too frequent
[20:54] <jwales> (point one was to take 15 minutes, but took 54, please everyone be mindful of this and let's try to be fast)
[20:54] <waerth> monthly is to much indeed
[20:54] <_sj_> size. dang euro keyboard.
[20:54] <elian> but first let's discuss the general thing
[20:54] <Xirzon> I'm not sure about the whole report idea - what exactly is the point?
[20:54] <elian> Xirzon: to get informations
[20:54] <Xirzon> generally we do things on a volunteer basis and this seems a little too coercive to me
[20:54] <dannyisme> i like it
[20:55] <dannyisme> we may be able to help them with problems they face
[20:55] <dannyisme> and we may be able to share ideas
[20:55] <sannse> how would a single contact person be decided for large versions?
[20:55] <elian> it should not be a forced thing
[20:55] <dannyisme> from within the community
[20:55] <elian> no sanctions
[20:55] <britty> sannse, imo it's wiki so everyone can edit it as usual
[20:55] <elian> it's all volunteer work
[20:55] <Xirzon> if there are no sanctions, that's OK
[20:56] <elian> but the encouragement should be there
[20:56] <Anthere> jwales point 1 was obviously not only with new projects....
[20:56] <Xirzon> I think the report system should be given a trial period
[20:56] <Angela> It's compulsory for other languages to make reports on Wikitravel I believe
[20:56] <elian> and for _new_ projects it should be an essential requirement
[20:56] <Xirzon> wait and see if it will actually be used
[20:56] <elian> and for new languages
[20:56] <Anthere> what happen if a big project makes no report
[20:57] <Anthere> because this is bugging everyone ?
[20:57] <jwales> Anthere: yes, we got sidetracked on many other things. :-) Not your fault. We all got a little noisy.
[20:57] <elian> Anthere: edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice ;-)
[20:57] <Anthere> elian, I did not get it...
[20:57] <britty> good idea
[20:57] <Angela> I agree to a trial period of this, but I don't think projects ought to be forced to report under threat of being closed if they don't
[20:57] * Anthere feels stupid
[20:57] <elian> Angela: of course no
[20:58] <Xirzon> how long should the trial period be? shall we say 6 months?
[20:58] <elian> but trial period is not enough
[20:58] <yannf> Anthere, make a banner to the wiki which gives no report ;)
[20:58] <dannyisme> no one will close them
[20:58] <jwales> One way to present this, which I'm not sure I support, I just throw it out here:
[20:58] <elian> people will do it if it is official policy
[20:58] <sannse> you mean edit the site notice to persuade someone to update?
[20:58] <Anthere> I am not sure I see the interest....
[20:59] <dannyisme> i think the report shoudl be the responsibility of the embassies, which should be invigorated
[20:59] <waerth> I feel it is more important for smaller projects
[20:59] <waerth> to get some kind of health check
[20:59] <dannyisme> and we should have a meeting of ambassadors once every two or three months
[20:59] <Xirzon> do I understand correctly that reports should be in English?
[20:59] <yannf> waerth, agreed
[20:59] <waerth> once the project grows beyond a size it wouldn't be needed
[20:59] <jwales> that each wikipedia language should elect an ambassador to serve as official point of contact.
[20:59] <Anthere> Xirzon good point ;-)
[20:59] <Angela> Surely we can not force people to report in English
[20:59] <elian> jwales: good idea
[21:00] <jwales> We should not force English.
[21:00] <Angela> Why the need for an election?
[21:00] <yannf> dannyisme, yes, it would also create more cooperation between languages
[21:00] <elian> if from a project no one is able to write in english we'll try to find translators
[21:00] <dannyisme> however, we can do like the UN and pick languages for reports
[21:00] <Anthere> usually, these things happen by choice, not by elections
[21:00] <Angela> There hasn't been enough interest in this already. If people have to go through elections, there will be even less involvement
[21:00] <Xirzon> an election has the advantage of bringing out the most active people who are likely to actually work in that role
[21:00] <elian> Angela: I don't think so
[21:00] <jwales> But as a practical matter, if the Ambassador is to be effective, it will make sense for the person to report in English, French, German, or any other language that someone can understand. :-)
[21:00] <elian> Xirzon: I agree
[21:00] <dannyisme> in smaller wikis there are two contributors--no need for an election
[21:00] <dori> since we have active reporters, we could have active translators, and the report can be in one of those for which there are translators
[21:01] <Xirzon> Angela: I think an election will actually increase interest because people become aware that something is happening
[21:01] <Angela> Not everyone would be comfortable going through an election
[21:01] <elian> and the job will have some sort of legitimacy
[21:01] <Anthere> dannyisme, even on fr, I am sure we would have few candidates...
[21:01] <sannse> why can the means of choosing the representative be left to the individual on each version
[21:01] <britty> ah yes, but in small wikis i don't think poll should be mundatroy
[21:01] <jwales> The only reason I suggested an election was just that if there is a formal role, there has to be some method of saying who is filling it. It could just be a volunteer in many cases, but people may fight over it.
[21:01] <Anthere> sannse is correct
[21:01] <dori> we shouldn't spend so much time on this bureaucracy though
[21:01] <Xirzon> ...
[21:01] <Angela> Small wikis don't even have elections for adminship
[21:01] <elian> proposals:
[21:01] <Xirzon> the role of the amabassador would only be a formal one
[21:01] <jwales> Angela: right.
[21:01] <elian> big wikis should elect the contact person
[21:01] <Xirzon> the ambassador could be assisted by many volunteers
[21:02] <dannyisme> btw, if it helps, i am developing a nice corps of translators to whom we can turn
[21:02] <dori> I don't really like how the number of "roles" keeps growing
[21:02] <Anthere> dori agreed
[21:02] <Anthere> keep it simple
[21:02] <waerth> big wikis ambassadors, small wikis have to make reports?
[21:02] <Angela> If people want to fight over it, you can ask them to have an election, but if only one person applies, it's pointless to force them to have an election
[21:02] <elian> waerth: no, the same role
[21:02] <Xirzon> Angela: of course
[21:02] <britty> ok all 5K+ size wikis have an election - how about it?
[21:02] <elian> Angela: yep
[21:02] <jwales> Angela: agreed.
[21:02] <dannyisme> I agree with angela
[21:03] <britty> hmm
[21:03] <waerth> k
[21:03] <dori> what's the problem with having more than one reporter?
[21:03] <dori> why even bother with elections?
[21:03] <elian> dori: no problem at all
[21:03] <britty> clarify: for each wiki we have ONE ambassodor?
[21:03] <elian> but we need _at least_ one
[21:03] <britty> or at least
[21:03] <britty> danke elian
[21:03] <Xirzon> hmm, maybe we should use OTRS on a larger scale to coordinate this stuff?
[21:03] <elian> who takes the responsability for the reports even if someone else writes it
[21:03] <Xirzon> have ambassador teams who share OTRS accounts?
[21:04] <britty> what's otrs?
[21:04] <elian> all ambassadors should subscribe to the foundation list
[21:04] <Angela> brick: an email ticket system
[21:04] <britty> thx ang
[21:04] <Angela> s/brick/britty
[21:04] <Angela> sorry
[21:04] <britty> np :)
[21:04] <brick> p :)
[21:04] <dori> how about have people continue to work on the projects, if someone wants a report and there are no reporters, they can go ask on the project
[21:05] <jwales> dannyisme, perhaps now now but maybe you can tell me more soon about the corps of translators?
[21:05] <elian> dori: what I want is exactly such a team of reporters
[21:05] <Anthere> but
[21:05] <elian> that I don't have to ask every single wiki: "how are you, are you in trouble?"
[21:05] <Xirzon> I'm not very clear on the reporter/ambassador distinction, and on whether we want multiple people in either role
[21:05] <Anthere> is ambassador the same job than reporters ?
[21:05] <Anthere> not for I
[21:05] * waerth am going to bed will read tomorrow
[21:05] <dori> elian: yes, but you can't ask people, if they want to do it fine, if not fine, more time they spend on reports, less time they spend on the project
[21:05] <elian> ambassador/reporter/contact person the same
[21:05] <Angela> goodnight waerth
[21:06] <britty> night
[21:06] <Anthere> elian then I certainly disagree
[21:06] <elian> dori: we are talking about quarterly, short reports
[21:06] * avar resists making a comment about TPS reports.
[21:06] <Anthere> that this should be one person only
[21:06] <Anthere> and I disagree with elections
[21:06] <elian> Anthere: do we need more roles?
[21:06] <Anthere> a person is contact because he has good contact with people
[21:06] <Anthere> not because he was elected
[21:06] <Xirzon> if there are multiple people, we don't really need elections, although perhaps something like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
[21:06] <Anthere> we need less bureaucracy
[21:06] <dori> elian: this is one more things people have to keep in mind, I know I'm not going to remember
[21:07] <elian> Anthere: people used different names for it
[21:07] <dori> Anthere: yep, a lot less
[21:07] <dannyisme> sj also has a huge body of translators if necessary
[21:07] <jwales> "we need less bureaucracy" - jwales votes yes
[21:07] <elian> yep
[21:07] <sannse> I think all this can be left to the individual versions
[21:07] <elian> sannse: agreed
[21:08] <Anthere> let us summarize
[21:08] <Anthere> we want report
[21:08] <dori> maybe we can ask node to do the reports, he seems to know 50 languages
[21:08] <Xirzon> I would like a more detailed reporter/ambassador proposal
[21:08] <Anthere> or do we ?
[21:08] <GerardM_> less bureacracy is possible when every one is of good will. Having unclear rules gives rise to a certain type of trollish behaviour
[21:08] <Anthere> I agree with Xirzon
[21:08] <dori> I don't really care for the reports
[21:08] <Anthere> it needs more thinking
[21:09] <Anthere> or...
[21:09] <elian> just some general questions:
[21:09] <Anthere> we can publicize reports
[21:09] <Anthere> but not do any official reporter team for now
[21:09] <GerardM_> What we need is more interproject activities that make people cooperate more
[21:09] <elian> Anthere: then how do you get the reports?
[21:09] <Anthere> dori, you say you do not feel the need for report
[21:09] <Xirzon> GerardM_: I have an idea for that, maybe there'll be time to discuss it later
[21:09] <Angela> could this be detailed more on Meta then rather than needing a decision today, and move on to the next point now?
[21:09] <Anthere> do you think you are aware of what is going on in other porjects
[21:09] <jwales> Just one thought, not requiring discussion right now, just a general thought. When I think about voting on things wikimedia wide, there's a problem that things are too en-dominant. I rather like the idea of some votes on some things have a "double majority" nature whereby a majority of large wikipedia languages also have to agree, to give a more global flavor.
[21:09] <Anthere> and do you feel you wuld like to know more
[21:10] <dori> what I think would be good is a way to push announcements into a certain page of each wiki, people don't bother with mailing lists, it'd be nice if there was a way to get the attention of the wiki directly
[21:10] <dori> Anthere: that's right
[21:10] <Xirzon> jwales: only if there is a minimum participation per language as well
[21:10] <elian> dori: yes. at the moment it's frustrating to contact all the wikis
[21:10] <britty> agreed
[21:11] <Xirzon> dori: hence the announce-l suggestion
[21:11] <elian> there is no other solution than just go on tour around every wiki
[21:11] <Anthere> hence my suggsetion for a talk message project wide
[21:11] <dori> Xirzon: no, not yet another list, no lists
[21:11] <britty> Xirzon, most of wikipedians subscribe no wiki mailinglist
[21:11] <elian> like waerth has done for the translation of the week
[21:11] <Xirzon> there could be a mirror of announce-l on every wiki
[21:11] <Angela> I think a way of leaving a message on every wiki would be better than relying on mailing lists
[21:11] <Anthere> elian, after a while, you get to know at least one person
[21:11] * britty nods
[21:11] <Anthere> and you can ask this person
[21:11] <elian> so everyone agrees that we need a solution to distribute a message to all wikis at once?
[21:11] <jwales> Xirzon right: thus the qualification of "large" -- if something was voted 500-300, and the 500 are all en, and the 300 are fr,de,and ja... something is wrong.
[21:11] <dori> we need something that shows up on recent changes and watchlists
[21:11] <jwales> yes!
[21:11] <Xirzon> Angela: who would have access to that feature?
[21:12] <Angela> elian: yes
[21:12] <dannyisme> can we have an all-wiki posting?
[21:12] <dori> prefereably in a different color
[21:12] <Xirzon> slow down
[21:12] <Angela> Xirzon: maybe stewards to start with?
[21:12] <elian> recentchanges would be the best place probably
[21:12] <dori> and blink tags...no I take that back :)
[21:12] <Anthere> I suggested a way to contact all wikis on wikis
[21:12] <jwales> The best place for an everywhere wide message is rc.
[21:12] <Anthere> but I had no feedback...
[21:12] <elian> jwales: jinx ;-)
[21:12] <Xirzon> Angela: another steward privilege? I'm not sure I like that idea
[21:12] <Anthere> lol
[21:12] * jwales buys elian a coke.
[21:13] <Xirzon> I'd rather have a moderation system
[21:13] <Angela> who else is trusted to do it other than developers who don't have time?
[21:13] <elian> jwales: thanks :)
[21:13] <Angela> Xirzon: moderated by whom?
[21:13] <elian> distributing a wiki wide message should be a steward task
[21:13] <Xirzon> stewards for pushing the final button, maybe, but everyone should be able to submit messages
[21:13] <Anthere> I trust many other poeple....
[21:13] <elian> Xirzon: you can put your request on requests for messages ;-)
[21:13] <Anthere> anyone should be able to submit
[21:13] <dori> the problem with RC is that its talk page would not be a natural place for discussing the announcement
[21:13] <Anthere> and ask for translations...
[21:14] <britty> yes
[21:14] <Angela> Xirzon: yes, it would work like other steward requests - someone asks for a message to go on all wikis, and a steward carries it out if it meets some policy. It wouldn't be the stewards actually making the messages
[21:14] <elian> so, for example danny with his translation of the week could ask a steward
[21:14] <jwales> dori: such messages should contain a link to the right place to discuss.
[21:14] <dannyisme> there is a problem
[21:14] <britty> i am actie on some wikis but RC talk is not used
[21:14] <dannyisme> what language would the message be in
[21:14] <Anthere> all languages
[21:14] <sannse> there is too much to be discussed on this for it to be done here and now
[21:14] <Anthere> thanks to translators
[21:14] <Xirzon> time for translation, and english by default when there is none
[21:14] <Anthere> english when no other language
[21:14] <dannyisme> so french would get a message in all languages?
[21:14] <Anthere> no, in french
[21:14] <Anthere> if translated
[21:15] <Anthere> in enlgish otherwise
[21:15] <dori> jwales: I'm thinking that if it were a different page (maybe message include it in RC), the announcement could be done in english, and people could just put the translation underneath
[21:15] <dannyisme> why dont we just have a message directing them to meta
[21:15] <dannyisme> it will say IMPORTANT MESSAGE in bold
[21:15] <Anthere> but how would people know whteher they are concerned ?
[21:15] <dannyisme> and link to meta
[21:15] <dori> dannyisme: people don't want to switch wikis, not without unified logins
[21:15] <britty> 'cos less people have interest on meta
[21:15] <Xirzon> would the message always be a one-liner pointing to meta?
[21:15] <dannyisme> it is only to read the messages
[21:15] <Angela> There will be unified logins in a couple of months
[21:15] <britty> many users don't know even it
[21:15] <elian> one or two liner
[21:16] <dannyisme> it is important to introduce the smaller wikis to meta
[21:16] <Anthere> we need a short mention of what the message is about at least
[21:16] <Angela> the message could just be like "You have new messages"
[21:16] <dannyisme> in any event
[21:16] <Xirzon> Angela: if so, it would have to expire automatically
[21:16] <britty> one liner is the best
[21:16] <Anthere> correct Angela, but the final message shuld be translated
[21:16] <dannyisme> definitelty, britty
[21:16] <Anthere> or people could translate them themselves
[21:16] <britty> can we have a enw feature, like sitenotice,
[21:16] <dannyisme> and the final message they are directed to will be translated
[21:16] <Angela> Anthere: yes, on meta
[21:16] <britty> but only a message on RC?
[21:16] <Anthere> on meta yes
[21:17] <Angela> and it expires when you click on it or after x days
[21:17] <Anthere> yes
[21:17] <britty> the latter is preferable
[21:17] <Xirzon> the one thing I fear is overuse
[21:17] <elian> that's prevented by the stewards
[21:17] <dori> Xirzon: few people would have the power to use it, so I don't think it will be overused
[21:17] <Angela> we'd need policies for it, but there isn't time in this meeting to decide those (10 minutes left)
[21:17] <britty> someone should decide; perhaps stewards
[21:17] <elian> and sitenotice isn't overused neither
[21:18] <Xirzon> ok
[21:18] <jwales> How many stewards are there?
[21:18] <dannyisme> not enough
[21:18] <Angela> about 10
[21:18] <Angela> 2 active
[21:18] <britty> 7
[21:18] <Xirzon> so, can anyone enter this feature request into bugzilla and describe it properly?
[21:18] <elian> I will do a feature request after the meeting
[21:18] <Xirzon> thanks, elian
[21:18] <Angela> maybe more than 2
[21:19] <GerardM_> Stewards for which project are all they good for everything ??
[21:19] <Anthere> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/023583.html
[21:19] <jwales> (And don't count me, if I am one, because I don't have a clue.)
[21:19] <dori> elian: could you also post the bug ID in the meeting notes?
[21:19] <Anthere> 3 active angela
[21:19] <elian> dori: yes
[21:19] <Xirzon> left on the agenda: grants and a three-year-plan
[21:19] <Xirzon> do we want to discuss this both?
[21:19] <Angela> I think there will only be time for grants
[21:19] <dannyisme> i will cover grants in two minutes
[21:19] <Anthere> grants please
[21:20] <jwales> In 10 minutes, impossible.
[21:20] <dannyisme> i would like to get people to sign up for a grant committee
[21:20] <dannyisme> i will create a page on meta
[21:20] <dannyisme> and we will have a separate meeting
[21:20] <dannyisme> open as this one is
[21:20] <Xirzon> we need someone in the EU with knowledge of how the European Union institutions work
[21:21] <Anthere> how do you intend to work with local chapters ?
[21:21] <dannyisme> i think these are issues that require more than ten minutes
[21:21] <dannyisme> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_committee
[21:21] <Xirzon> heh
[21:21] <Xirzon> Template:Substub
[21:21] <dannyisme> interested parties sign up there and we will arrange for a separate meeting
[21:22] <Angela> erm... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_department
[21:22] <jwales> let's do grants. danny?
[21:22] <Angela> and a longer list of people at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants#People_interested_in_being_involved_with_the_Wikimedia_Grant_Committee
[21:22] <dannyisme> ok
[21:22] <Angela> could those 3 be merged?
[21:22] <jwales> I have a children's party to go to at 21:30UTC sharp, so I will leave at that time regardless, but I will leave this open so I can read the logs probably tomorrow morning.
[21:22] <dannyisme> we have several large grants coming up
[21:22] <dannyisme> OSI, hewlett, etc.
[21:23] <dannyisme> we will have to have a lot of material ready
[21:23] <Xirzon> jwales: could you respond to my wikinews mail within the weekend?
[21:23] <dannyisme> especially for OSI
[21:23] <dannyisme> which is meeting on december 13
[21:23] <Xirzon> is there anything about the OSI meeting on meta?
[21:24] <dannyisme> the one thing thta is important in all grant work is coordination
[21:24] <dannyisme> not yet
[21:24] <dannyisme> however, i want to make one point
[21:24] <jwales> Xirzon: I am putting in a full day of work tomorrow, so: yes.
[21:24] <Xirzon> thanks
[21:24] <yannf> i am ready to work on grants
[21:24] <dannyisme> people who are thinking of giving us 6 or 7 digit sums will likely look through meta
[21:24] <dannyisme> to see what we are about
[21:24] <yannf> and already booked in meta
[21:25] <elian> dannyisme: we should them better direct to the foundation website
[21:25] <dannyisme> given that, dealing with grants and discussing them should be done in a very careful manner
[21:25] <jwales> Xirzon: Angela, Anthere and I will all be attending a meeting with the board of OSI in early December. (Actually Ant is not yet certain, I think?)
[21:25] <elian> dannyisme: do you need a closed wiki for preparing grants?
[21:25] <dannyisme> yes, but i am not sure we want them to even find our dicussions
[21:25] <dannyisme> we may need a closed wiki, yes
[21:25] <jwales> Yes, open discussion on meta of grants, with trolls and random whatever: not a good idea.
[21:25] <elian> the german association has one for tricky answers
[21:26] <Anthere> it is hard to mention coordination when we do not know about OSI or Hemlett...
[21:26] <Xirzon> I proposed having a semi-closed wikis where anyone can apply for membership in an RFA like manner
[21:26] <Xirzon> s/wikis/wiki/
[21:26] <dannyisme> i can deal with that, Xircon
[21:26] <Anthere> Ant is certain
[21:26] <dannyisme> yes, anthere, that is true, on the other hand, all of the discussion should be confidential
[21:26] <Anthere> it is not me who is not certain
[21:27] <Angela> Xirzon: would you be willing to create the wiki for this please?
[21:27] <Anthere> dannyisme, then coordination is difficult in all cases
[21:27] <Xirzon> Angela: TimStarling is the wiki-creator-god
[21:27] <dannyisme> coordination should be done between members of the committee
[21:27] <Angela> Ok :)
[21:27] <dannyisme> who will receive all the information
[21:27] <jwales> Angela, will you ask Tim to do that?
[21:28] <Angela> yep
[21:28] <dori> Angela: it would need some access control though (http)
[21:28] <elian> simple http authentification
[21:28] <jwales> Yes, .htaccess will be fine.
[21:29] <elian> or can it be done by mediawiki?
[21:29] <akl> perhaps we could combine it with usernames/passwords of the wiki-account
[21:29] <_sj_> re: grants - I hope we will also encourage satellite projects and people using WM content in applying for grants
[21:29] <elian> akl: would be better
[21:29] <_sj_> like the california open texbook project
[21:29] <_sj_> and wiyyz ya
[21:29] <_sj_> sorry, wizzy za
[21:29] <dannyisme> yes, although our first priority should be us
[21:30] <Angela> Ok, it's half 9. Can we officially close this now?
[21:30] <Angela> Further discussion can happen on the mailing lists or Meta
[21:30] <dori> close it
[21:30] <dannyisme> ok
[21:30] <sannse> *nod*
[21:30] <_sj_> /me is sad we didnt get to discuss the 3-year plan.
[21:30] * Angela changes topic to