Oct 18 2019
Of the suggestions from Strainu, I'd be okay with either 2 or 3. It doesn't need to be immediate, so having a bot flagging it for admin review would work.
Oct 17 2019
The underlying worry that our previous GCs highlighted is that deleted information has some stuff that creates legal risks either for the WMF or sometimes individual users (or even if it may not actually be risky, it's the kind of material that could lead to a lot more complaints coming in, making for a large administrative burden for us). So, the right to review and access deleted material should be limited to ensure it's only available to a trusted group and it doesn't accidentally become public. We've relied on that trust being established through the RFA process, so I'm hesitant to give approval for a process that's shorter and only requires one commenter to participate.
Oct 16 2019
Hi all. A couple thoughts. I note from the original ticket that there's a note that patrollers were all selected through an RFA style process, which would satisfy the need for community review before giving people rights. It's not clear to me from this thread if that's the process for all patrollers or if it's just coincidence that it applies to all patrollers right now. If the latter, I would suggest that you formalize that the process to get patroller rights requires a community review and then this is fine.
Aug 16 2019
Nov 29 2018
Hi all, commenting on this from WMF Legal.
Jan 12 2018
@ZMcCune @Bawolff. I have some good news on the BebasNeue font. It seems to be floating around some different sites, but it appears that it has been freely licensed under the Open Font License (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL) which is an acceptable free license for font usage. It shows up under this license in a few places, including the original designers website at http://dharmatype.com/license
So, you've got Legal approval for using that one.
Jun 12 2017
Clarifying that this is approved from Legal as long as the CC license is present, putting it in the title field is not a requirement. I was suggesting use of title as a way to avoid it being cut off, but it's approved as long as the information is present.
Jun 9 2017
Update. Legal is good with going forward on this. As a note, when filling these out, the CC license information should be in the name fields, to avoid it getting cut off for viewers on a mobile device, as it seems like the description field for some of these tags does not always display. The CC info can be pretty short. Something like [photo name] by [creator] CC [license type and version number]
Jun 6 2017
Jumping in here. I'm hoping to help on this one to take a bit off Stephen's plate. What I was saying with @Ladsgroup is that having the CC notice with the picture is the ideal, since it makes it the easiest to make sure we're doing the license right. But it's probably okay to do this even if we can't make that work. I want to take a day or two to look into it a bit more.
Jul 18 2016
Jun 24 2016
Jun 20 2016
Hi Riley, would it be possible to do the digging? I've tried looking on our end and have not been able to find a conversation from Legal approving the change.