resending, as it seems this message never arrived.
2014-08-02 10:37 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>:
> Hi Jens,
> Just out of curiosity for clarification, given your Praesidium signature:
> are you engaging this discussion strongly from your personal interest, or
> did WMDE create a position on this issue be it formally or not?
> Thanks, lodewijk
> On Aug 2, 2014 1:34 AM, "Jens Best" <jens.best(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
>> my first repsonse to Erics text:
>> a lot of words, a lot of "believing in this & that", some emotional
>> storytelling - but nothing on the simple fact that any zero-rating is a
>> clear violation of net neutrality.
>> So, is this supposed to be the opening of a discussion? For me this text
>> doesn't sound like that any discussion with an open result is possible or
>> even welcomed.
>> This text is in clear contradiction to the recent statement of EFF. So is
>> the Foundation willingly trying to violate one of the basic principles of
>> an open web just to be part of the Facebook Zero, Google Zero, Coke Zero -
>> Group? Is the foundation really that naive to not see that this way it
>> becomes part of the marketing machine of access providers to deteriorate
>> user habits?
>> So, as a net neutrality advocate somebody has to ask him-/herself if
>> he/she really wants to participate in a discussion which result is already
>> determined. What is EFF saying to this clear violation of net neutrality by
>> best regards
>> Jens Best
>> 2014-08-02 0:48 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder(a)wikimedia.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net
>>> neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic:
>>> Yana Welinder
>>> Legal Counsel
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 415.839.6885 ext. 6867
>>> @yanatweets <https://twitter.com/yanatweets>
>>> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
>>> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
>>> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
>>> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Jens Best
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
>> mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
>> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
>> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
>> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
I noticed there have been a number of new joins to this list. I don't know if everyone has a good grasp of why this list exists. So here is my opinion of what this list is for:
The advocacy advisory list was constituted to advise - on request - the WMF regarding topics of advocacy when the WMF has been asked to advocate on behalf of the community. For example, if a free-speech coalition asked WMF to sign onto a letter opposing a specific legislation, the WMF might ask this list to explain how the legislation affected the WMF principles, and how some members of the community feel about the issues.
While this makes the list a discussion group, it is not a channel for advocating.
If it is used as a channel for petitioning the WMF it becomes less-useful. The WMF will ignore the channel in general, and use it to request advice less often, and likely will value that advice less as well. The discussions, because they will not be receiving responses from the WMF itself, will tend to highlight divisions within the community rather than the more fundamental agreements of purpose and practice. So, please don't do that.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This might be a good point for the list moderator (someone from Legal?) to
> step in to help maintain a constructive atmosphere on this list. We can and
> should discuss, debate and disagree while maintaining a degree of
Generally, I think list moderation is *extremely* important for keeping a
mailing list healthy. I described my best practices for behavior and
moderation in the draft OSI Code of Conduct for Mailing Lists:
However, I don't think that imposing such a policy in the middle of a hot
debate is a good idea. So I suggest we have a discussion about that once
this has run its natural course.
In this specific case, I agree that the tone has become hostile and
unconstructive from some participants. I hope everyone will take a deep
breath, and if appropriate, apologize either to specific people who have
been attacked or to the list as a whole for creating an unproductive
I also hope that, in keeping with the "disclose potential conflicts"
section of the OSI code linked above, some of the new list members will
introduce themselves and explain their interests and motives for joining
the group. Advocates from other groups are of course welcome here, but we
hope in the spirit of transparency you'll disclose your goals and
intentions for joining in our community.
Deputy General Counsel
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
Thank you all. Please resist dwelling and obsessing over list emails -- let
community discuss amongst themselves -- we should respond as a team when
On Aug 5, 2014 7:08 AM, "Juergen Fenn" <schneeschmelze(a)googlemail.com>
> 2014-08-05 2:54 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org>:
> > We tend to go out pontificating on these lists. What would be helpful is
> > solutioning. For net neutrality, how would you reconcile the need for
> > public access to information with the ideals of net neutrality? This is
> > library analogy. We believe libraries should exist in this new digital
> > world. Do you advise that they cannot? And if they can, how should we
> > articulate this better?
> > Go ahead and take a stab at it.
> The solution probably is to go and partner with the libraries instead
> of the ISPs. Leave it to the libraries which ISP they choose. It is up
> to the libraries to provide access to resources for their users. They
> select the resources they provide and they mind the technical side
> behind it all. This is not the WMF's business. You only run the WP
> website and care about the community.
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Probably a little bit of both.
On the more-or-less innocent side, some academic institutions are genuinely
worried about some "new" aspects of information reuse that this partially
addresses, like data mining/data extraction. I think this is just a phase
and they'll grow out of it, but we (free/open community) have not yet done
a great job addressing why freedom to do data mining is important.
On the "pull the wool" side, this is damaging to interoperability and
republishing - both of which are important to us and very scary to the
publishing industry. So the publishers (and this is definitely an
initiative from publishers) have a lot of incentive to constantly try to
redefine "open access" until they can break it with those terms.
The letter we've been asked to join focuses primarily on the
interoperability argument, which I think is appropriate for them; the blog
post I'm thinking about would be more focused on intellectual freedom.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
> Would really be worth calling them out on this. Perhaps they are just
> Innocent or perhaps trying to pull the wool?
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:27:18 -0700
>> From: Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
>> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
>> Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> Hi, all-
>> An academic publishing group called STM (The International Association of
>> Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) has published some "open"
>> licenses that, well, aren't really open. In my reading, they fail both the
>> OKFN's open definition and freedomdefined.org's definition, so would not
>> acceptable on Commons or other WMF projects.
>> Andrés Guadamuz has written about this more here:
>> I'm considering drafting a WMF blog post on this issue, because of the
>> potential for confusion and the limitations on reuse. I've also been
>> made aware of a potential letter on the subject from a variety of related
>> organizations that we'll consider signing on to.
>> This is not advocacy per se, since it is a private group and not a
>> government, but I wanted to give you all a heads up in case you were asked
>> about it by publishers or other people in the open access movement.
>> Have a great weekend-
>>  We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
>> like PLOS:
>> I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,
>> Luis Villa
>> Deputy General Counsel
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>> *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
>> received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
>> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
>> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
>> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
>> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
I've set up a page  and requested a room for our networking lunch on
Sunday. It will be in parallel with the WikiWomen's Lunch, so I apologise
to everyone whose scheduling now got even harder. This was, however, the
best possible timeslot I could manage.
As it is not possible to get a list of all Wikimania attendees and filter
out the digital and policy activists among them to send out invitations,
please help me by inviting anyone you know will be present and interested.