https://act.eff.org/action/tell-the-senate-vote-no-on-the-cybersecurity-info...
As if anyone at the Foundation cares anymore. Why should they? They have cushy jobs and assured incomes. The Foundation Legal staff has shown their true colors by ignoring longstanding issues of interest to the Community and focusing exclusively on resume building.
Hi James,
it is already quite annoying that you so often introduce topics here that are seemingly barely relevant. But this kind of email and language is in my opinion out of line on a whole different level, and I would appreciate it if you could leave your (in this case, categorical) personal attacks and snidy remarks away. Not only are they totally irrelevant and do they not match reality at all, but they don't help your case either.
If there is any reason why people are ignoring you (and I have certainly that tendency nowadays), you should search the reason for that in the language of your emails, and the topics you bring up, rather than assume this is a general problem.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-the-senate-vote-no-on-the-cybersecurity-info...
As if anyone at the Foundation cares anymore. Why should they? They have cushy jobs and assured incomes. The Foundation Legal staff has shown their true colors by ignoring longstanding issues of interest to the Community and focusing exclusively on resume building.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Lodewijk,
There are no assumptions involved with the fact that longstanding community issues have been categorically excluded by the recent limited scope of the Foundation's Public Policy efforts. I am sorry that you are annoyed, but my sentiments are sincere and my opinion is that this turn of events is disappointing enough to warrant my choice of words. If you are offended by my words instead of the underlying issue, I am sorry, but I disagree with those priorities.
I continue to call for a review of Public Policy goals to align them with community priorities. Continued focus on a very limited subset of issues effecting only a tiny proportion of editors is completely unacceptable.
If you have actual evidence that my opinion "does not match reality at all" I would like to read it.
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
it is already quite annoying that you so often introduce topics here that are seemingly barely relevant. But this kind of email and language is in my opinion out of line on a whole different level, and I would appreciate it if you could leave your (in this case, categorical) personal attacks and snidy remarks away. Not only are they totally irrelevant and do they not match reality at all, but they don't help your case either.
If there is any reason why people are ignoring you (and I have certainly that tendency nowadays), you should search the reason for that in the language of your emails, and the topics you bring up, rather than assume this is a general problem.
Lodewijk
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jsalsman@gmail.com');> wrote:
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-the-senate-vote-no-on-the-cybersecurity-info...
As if anyone at the Foundation cares anymore. Why should they? They have cushy jobs and assured incomes. The Foundation Legal staff has shown their true colors by ignoring longstanding issues of interest to the Community and focusing exclusively on resume building.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Dear James,
2015-10-22 15:08 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com:
I am sorry that you are annoyed, but my sentiments are sincere and my opinion is that this turn of events is disappointing enough to warrant my choice of words. If you are offended by my words instead of the underlying issue, I am sorry, but I disagree with those priorities.
Count me annoyed as well. Actual issues or not, I see nothing that could even remotely justify the language and the tone of your message.
Best regards,
Jérémie,
"Actual issues or not"? How would you have phrased the sentiments?
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Jérémie Roquet jroquet@arkanosis.net wrote:
Dear James,
2015-10-22 15:08 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com javascript:;>:
I am sorry that you are annoyed, but my sentiments are sincere and my opinion is that this turn of events is disappointing enough to warrant my choice of words. If you are offended
by
my words instead of the underlying issue, I am sorry, but I disagree with those priorities.
Count me annoyed as well. Actual issues or not, I see nothing that could even remotely justify the language and the tone of your message.
Best regards,
-- Jérémie
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
On 22 October 2015 at 15:08, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
but my sentiments are sincere
No one is doubting that your sentiments are sincere. We (myself included) reject the tone of your sentiments (not their sincerity) as being harmful to your argument being accepted by others. What I (and presumably others) do doubt, is whether the issues that you continually raise here are directly to us in the first place. Note, I'm not saying they're not important issues for society - but for this specific community to be doing something about.
I think, in short, you've got the wrong mailing list. Perhaps you should join the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/ and discuss the issues that you're interested in on their mailing list.
I'm sorry I missed https://twitter.com/wikimediapolicy/status/655179547994816512
To prevent such difficulties in the future, could a summary of Wikimedia Public Policy tweets please be posted to this list?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 15:08, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
but my sentiments are sincere
No one is doubting that your sentiments are sincere. We (myself included) reject the tone of your sentiments (not their sincerity) as being harmful to your argument being accepted by others. What I (and presumably others) do doubt, is whether the issues that you continually raise here are directly to us in the first place. Note, I'm not saying they're not important issues for society - but for this specific community to be doing something about.
I think, in short, you've got the wrong mailing list. Perhaps you should join the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/ and discuss the issues that you're interested in on their mailing list.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Twitter already has a feature whereby you can follow all the tweets of a specific account. It's called 'following', and it's a core feature of Twitter.
Even better - Just go to a user's profile page, click the little 'settings' icon and press "turn on notifications". That way, someone doesn't need to duplicate their work and use this mailing list to privide a 'summary' of the tweets hey just sent - Twitter can inform you of the whole tweet, immediately and directly.
On Thursday, 22 October 2015, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry I missed https://twitter.com/wikimediapolicy/status/655179547994816512
To prevent such difficulties in the future, could a summary of Wikimedia Public Policy tweets please be posted to this list?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 15:08, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
but my sentiments are sincere
No one is doubting that your sentiments are sincere. We (myself included) reject the tone of your sentiments (not their sincerity) as being
harmful to
your argument being accepted by others. What I (and presumably others) do doubt, is whether the issues that you continually raise here are
directly to
us in the first place. Note, I'm not saying they're not important issues
for
society - but for this specific community to be doing something about.
I think, in short, you've got the wrong mailing list. Perhaps you should join the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/ and discuss the issues that you're interested in on their mailing list.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
James, I stopped reading your email after the third sentence. Insulting the people you are trying to influence is rarely an effective tactic. As someone who is also concerned about CISA, I appreciate your sincere passion and I hope the WMF decides to take more action on it. Hopefully, we can all remember that we are on the same team though.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-the-senate-vote-no-on-the-cybersecurity-info...
As if anyone at the Foundation cares anymore. Why should they? They have cushy jobs and assured incomes. The Foundation Legal staff has shown their true colors by ignoring longstanding issues of interest to the Community and focusing exclusively on resume building.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Here is an example of an organization which is encouraging their community to oppose CISA's requirement to share essentially all user personal and tracking information in real time with government:
http://www.decidethefuture.org/
I know we are are all on the same team, but when the Public Policy department won't even say whether they intend to align their efforts in to issues by the extent to which they affect the community, it is very easy to become cynical and jaded.
Questions go unanswered. Drawing conclusions about motivations behind the inability or unwillingness to address them is annoying, but the underlying abuses and overreach are far more annoying. It annoys me to see what could be a powerhouse for defending the community from threats to the mission has apparently decided that a Twitter campaign is the best they can do. I hope I am wrong, but where is the evidence that more is being done?
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
James, I stopped reading your email after the third sentence. Insulting the people you are trying to influence is rarely an effective tactic. As someone who is also concerned about CISA, I appreciate your sincere passion and I hope the WMF decides to take more action on it. Hopefully, we can all remember that we are on the same team though.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:25 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jsalsman@gmail.com');> wrote:
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-the-senate-vote-no-on-the-cybersecurity-info...
As if anyone at the Foundation cares anymore. Why should they? They have cushy jobs and assured incomes. The Foundation Legal staff has shown their true colors by ignoring longstanding issues of interest to the Community and focusing exclusively on resume building.
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
On 23 October 2015 at 17:01, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
It annoys me to see what could be a powerhouse for defending the community from threats to the mission has apparently decided that a Twitter campaign is the best they can do. I hope I am wrong, but where is the evidence that more is being done?
You would like proof that the WMF publicpolicy/legal team is working on defending the privacy of its users (readers and volunteers) by proactively fighting the data-retention schemes of the US intelligence agencies? I suggest their most recent quarterly review documents, specifically this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Copy_of_WMF_Legal_Q1_2015-...
Or are you saying that suing the NSA isn't sufficiently proactive in this regard?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
... https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Copy_of_WMF_Legal_Q1_2015-...
Public Policy advocacy is not one of the objectives that the Foundation has chosen to measure with key performance indicator(s)? I would like to know why.
Or are you saying that suing the NSA isn't sufficiently proactive in this regard?
I thought that was good, but does filing one action with the judicial branch mean that the Foundation is no longer involved in the level of legislative advocacy which has historically been necessary to keep the community from losses to government abuse? The lawsuit will probably take many years. Meanwhile moral panic-wielding jingoists are likely to continue to try to push the same bills we've been fighting for years.
We know that the same dangerous bills are going to come up again and again. Will the Foundation stop fighting them just because the community has grown weary of talking about them?
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org