"Rogol",
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I now understand your perspective.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017>. I know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
Very useful context. I see your point.
Another example: suppose the community comes to
believe that the projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
.This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would also
require a Roadmap, see below.
Thank you. You’ve clearly answered my question about how it is different.
Very useful.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
reference and I should.
Useful, clear summary. Appreciated.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing>. We
invited some current and former community-selected board members as well as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them very
much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were
anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source. They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they
really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that
resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around
collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it
seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me
expect that it will be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career, it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately
answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve
relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind).
I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future in
open, inclusive, documented discourse
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017>.
I see progress, not perfection.
I don’t have enough information.
I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to
enumerate.
1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
I have a penchant for comedy. Although I can appreciate the comedy of the
lurching-monster imagery, I think this kind of language can place people on
the defensive. It may lead them to withdraw. Withdrawing may not be the
best thing to do, but it’s what many humans do. You are a very reasonable
thinker and appear to be intent on solving problems, so this kind of
joke/jab may undermine your deeper intent.
2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap
but has found it too
difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to
admit that it has not yet got round to doing it
4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows
the Community would not like it
5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the
effort to publish it
6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a wide
range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
Yes, it would definitely enable these things in theory and many likely also
in practice. I’m just now thinking of constraints (e.g., time, money,
recruiting), which is not your point.
I understand. I guess I’m trying to figure out just how cool and difficult
this style of collaboration would be and what are the other cool and
difficult things you fear we might not do if we deployed our resources in
this way. At this stage, I’m not for or against. I’m just thinking.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize.
Thank you.
/a
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your
name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or
even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my real
name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional
wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell
<
astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Rogol,
> Good to hear from you.
> "I am surprised by the notion
that WMF middle management is in some way
> answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> productive
> form of engagement between the two sides."
> Rogol, I'd like to hear more
about what you mean here, specifically in
this
> instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
> "But doing planning better is a
lesson for management to learn, not for
the
> Community."
> Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would
say that everybody should always
be
learning
on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
>
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
> if
> > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
> > carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
> > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> >
> > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed
by
> > Chris Koerner to planning. But doing
planning better is a lesson for
> > management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
> > advocated for involving the Community
in the planing more, earlier
and
> at a
> > higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to
the
> > Foundation's reluctance to do
that.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> > community
> > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
> > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
> Z.
> > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
> second
> > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
>
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
>
> Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
> > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
2)
> > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
> > movement. IMO him being let go is a
great loss to our movement.
People
> who
> > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
> between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
> > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
> on
> > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
> >
movement will pick him up.
> >
> > Best
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> astillwell(a)wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anna,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can
confirm
I
did
> > > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
> > > > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
> > interpreting
> > > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their
> > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> > >
> > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do
not
think
> > the
> > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a
"pause" that
> > > > necessitates
> > > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> > > > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
> > > degree
> > > > is
> > > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
> > Sad!).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
> > make
> > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
> > DJ,
> > > or
> > > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
> standing
> > to
> > > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense.
It's
> > > worthwhile
> > > > to
> > > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on
a
>
scale
> > > that
> > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
> > asked
> > > of
> > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
> > the
> > > > time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
> > > discussion
> > > > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who
all
> > seemed
> > > > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
> to
> > > them
> > > > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
> > legally
> > > > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
> > > >
> > > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
> is
> > > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
> > made
> > > > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of
Q3,
if
> > you'd
> > > > > like.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. I'll reach out.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > >
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> > peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anna,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Pete,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize
what
I
>
think
> > I
> > > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be
hard, and
if
> full
> > > >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers
may
not
> > be
> > > > >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is
that about
> right?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
> Thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“This
> >
> >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are
involved.
> > > >> Sometimes
> > > >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t
know
> > > whether
> > > >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts.
The
> > > truth
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial
> communication
> > > that
> > > > >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions
are
> > being
> > > > >> made.
> > > > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
> > known
> > > > once
> > > > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
> > explanations
> > > > you
> > > > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
> employment
> > > law
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra
to
> me.
> > I
> > > > >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my
personal
> choice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
> > reasonable
> > > > >> request to grant them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
> is
> > in
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> tension with
> > > > >>> another one:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a
rare
and
> > > > important
> > > > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or
sustain
are
> > complex,
> > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list
> > >>> participants.
> > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
> > in a
> > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
> > > would
> > > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
> > > > behind
> > > > >>> an
> > > > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
> > > generate
> > > > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
> > > > >>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
> > > Evaluation_Service>
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>
> > > > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
> > > > Readers.
> > > > >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to
see
the
> > > > >> interactive
> > > > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they
needed
to
> > > pause,
> > > > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The
team's aim
> > during
> > > > this
> > > > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable
state.”
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today
may
not
> be
> > > >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
> > > moved
> > > >>> on by then.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about
enthusiasm
for
> > > > >> software.
> > > > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half
life of a
> week,
> > > > >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless,
your
> point
> > > > still
> > > > >> stands.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Pete
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> /a
> > > > >> [[User:Annaproject]]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > > astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time
off as a
period
> > where
> > > > his
> > > > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered
until his
> > > [her/they]
> > > > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take
care of
> > > business."
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you
to think
> otherwise.
> > > In
> > > > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes
we all
face
> >
> >>>>
> > > >>> constraints.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every
now
and
> > > then,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> there
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
> > meets
> > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue
to
work
> on
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful
practice"
nor
did
> > >>>>
> > >>> anyone
> > >>>
> > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
> in
> > >>>>
> > >>> this
> > >>>
> > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
> and
> > >>>>
> > >>> allow
> > >>>
> > >>>> for one person to return to work?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Warmly,
> > >>>> /a
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <
> > >>>> tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> […]
> > >>>>>> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is
temporary.
> > > I’ve
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> heard
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> them request time. I am comfortable granting that
request,
but
> > no
> > > > one
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said
that the
person
with
> > the
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> most
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> information is on vacation. As someone who has
seen
employees
> go
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> through
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> considerable stress in the last years, the
entire executive
> team
> > is
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> working
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> to establish some cultural standards around
supporting
> > vacations.
> > > We
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> want
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> people here to feel comfortable taking proper
vacations and
> > > sometimes
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People
often plan
their
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> vacations
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> well
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> in advance and may not know that something
tricky will
come
> up.
> > > Just
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> so
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> you
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> understand one bias I bring to this
conversation.
> > > > >>>>>> […]
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this
is not a
use-
> > > > >>>>> ful
practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
> > > > >>>>> ees'
stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> > > > >>>>>
employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should
> > > > >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where
his work
> > > > >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his
return, but
> > > > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of
business.
> > > > >>>>> Especially such a major decision like
"pausing" a team
> > > > >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one
employee,
but
> >
> >>>>> be backed and explainable by others.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Tim
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >>>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >>>>>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their
candles in
it." -
> >
>>>> Margaret
> > >>>> Fuller
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Anna Stillwell
> > >>>> Director of Culture
> > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > >>>> 415.806.1536
> > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>*
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it."
-
> Margaret
> > > Fuller
> > >
> > > Anna Stillwell
> > > Director of Culture
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 415.806.1536
> > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
*
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> James Heilman
> > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > >
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
> > Fuller
> >
> > Anna Stillwell
> > Director of Culture
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.806.1536
> > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*