Hey all,
First of all, sorry for the delay in this e-mail, as real life has been getting in the way, so I am now able to send out the e-mail officially announcing the meeting on Saturday from 2-4 in room 214 of the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences building.
I have already spoken to some of you about running in the election that will be held on Saturday, assuming that we have at least 5-10 persons present, but if you are interested in running for President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, or Community Liaison, let me know, because it would be great not to have to appoint these positions. Additionally, we will be discussion the Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Loves Libraries, both of which are going on this month. Additionally, Open Access Week is occurring the week of October 20th, so that can also be something that is discussed, as there are at least two colleges that I know of that are planning something, so it might be good to coordinate any help that could be done between the other institutions.
Finally, if you are planning on going, please respond on the Meetup page for now, as I am going to get the Wiki page up and running shortly. If too few people are planning on going, I will cancel l the meeting, and reschedule voting to occur within the next week or so, online.
Useful links:
Agenda: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_England/5_October_2013 Link to Meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/wikipedia-5/events/143013002/
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
I know that, as I am no longer in Boston, my opinion probably carries a little less weight than it did when I was still in the area, however as someone that still cares deeply about Wikimedia New England, I feel that I have to respond to this.
There is not a single thing in the email Kevin sent that I don't strongly object to.
First of all, at the annual meetup we were given a promise that before we voted on *anything* someone would write up and email the list an explanation of the various incorporation options, and how officers would work, and give people time to digest this and suggest changes. Now I'm pretty sure that I haven't missed any emails, and I know I'm still on the mailing list, but I haven't gotten that explanation. So even if I were in Boston to vote in person, what is being asked for is for people to go to meeting without knowing a) who the candidates are in advance, and b) any real details about the organization that these people would be elected to.
Second of all, even if we were to have been given this information, and had an opportunity to discuss this and propose changes ahead of time, five people is in now way an appropriate size for the minimum number of people voting on these positions. Even ten people is too low. The recent annual meeting brought in two dozen people. A few years ago the annual meeting brought in even more people. Five or ten people isn't enough to decide on leadership positions.
Third of all, I find the line "it would be great not to have to appoint these positions" to be appalling. That implies that if there aren't enough people at the meeting, the possibility exists that leadership roles appointed. No. If there are not enough people at the meeting, that means that you can't have a vote. It doesn't mean appointments. This is a community organization; leadership must be determined by the community. That means a vote, and a vote of as large a segment of the community as is possible to get.
Fourth of all, I find Kevin's apparent role as kingmaker, talking to people about leadership roles in private, to be unsettling. I respect Kevin's desire to jolt WMNE into action and finally get it to incorporated status, but at every step of the way he has cut corners in order to move it forward, and we're now well past the point where corners can be cut.
I strongly suggest that at the upcoming meeting, rather than force a vote before everyone is ready (i.e. has a full understanding of what is being voted on, who is running, and what the organization is going to look like), you instead use the time to clearly define who is running for what position, what the roles and responsibilities of each position are, what kind of organization WMNE is aming for, and what the bylaws of the organization are - including the election bylaws. Then, one that's all decided, you put all of it into an email and send it to the Boston list and the Connecticut list, and you open it all up for discussion, which should happen on the Boston list, where everyone can see it. Voting itself should also be done online, so that everyone that is interested can participate, including people that can't make meetings or don't go to meetings but are still interested.
I personally have no interest in a leadership position in WMNE, as I'm no longer in New England and it would make no sense to lead from afar, so please don't take this as political maneuvering. However as things stand I would not consider a leadership body elected on Saturday to be at all legitimate, owing the the failures outlined above. I've been waiting for two years for WMNE to become a registered non-profit with formal leadership and possibly a budget, but this isn't the way to do it. You can't elect a leadership body without bylaws that state what elected officials do and what rules they must follow, and you can't vote on either a leadership body or the bylaws that govern them if you're not given advance notice of what you're voting for.
I hope that you, the community, will take these thoughts into consideration.
Yours in absence, Sven Manguard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
First of all, sorry for the delay in this e-mail, as real life has been getting in the way, so I am now able to send out the e-mail officially announcing the meeting on Saturday from 2-4 in room 214 of the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences building.
I have already spoken to some of you about running in the election that will be held on Saturday, assuming that we have at least 5-10 persons present, but if you are interested in running for President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, or Community Liaison, let me know, because it would be great not to have to appoint these positions. Additionally, we will be discussion the Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Loves Libraries, both of which are going on this month. Additionally, Open Access Week is occurring the week of October 20th, so that can also be something that is discussed, as there are at least two colleges that I know of that are planning something, so it might be good to coordinate any help that could be done between the other institutions.
Finally, if you are planning on going, please respond on the Meetup page for now, as I am going to get the Wiki page up and running shortly. If too few people are planning on going, I will cancel l the meeting, and reschedule voting to occur within the next week or so, online.
Useful links:
Agenda: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_England/5_October_2013 Link to Meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/wikipedia-5/events/143013002/
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
The important thing to remember is that WMNE has decided not to have any sort of formal incorporation for the medium term; as I understand it, the purpose of a committee is largely to give AffCom a defined contact group of self-organized volunteers to talk to (for a humble "usergroup", rather than for a chapter), and I don't think something like a bylaws is even being contemplated.
This informal stage is just one step, and of course if there was anything like a push to chapterdom, more bylaws specifics, etc, would be needed.
Although Kevin should definitely have done more advance publicity on this, this is certainly a symptom of inexperience rather than ill intent, and hopefully through this process we'll also recruit more experienced planners for future events.
Thanks, Richard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Sven Manguard svenmanguard@gmail.comwrote:
I know that, as I am no longer in Boston, my opinion probably carries a little less weight than it did when I was still in the area, however as someone that still cares deeply about Wikimedia New England, I feel that I have to respond to this.
There is not a single thing in the email Kevin sent that I don't strongly object to.
First of all, at the annual meetup we were given a promise that before we voted on *anything* someone would write up and email the list an explanation of the various incorporation options, and how officers would work, and give people time to digest this and suggest changes. Now I'm pretty sure that I haven't missed any emails, and I know I'm still on the mailing list, but I haven't gotten that explanation. So even if I were in Boston to vote in person, what is being asked for is for people to go to meeting without knowing a) who the candidates are in advance, and b) any real details about the organization that these people would be elected to.
Second of all, even if we were to have been given this information, and had an opportunity to discuss this and propose changes ahead of time, five people is in now way an appropriate size for the minimum number of people voting on these positions. Even ten people is too low. The recent annual meeting brought in two dozen people. A few years ago the annual meeting brought in even more people. Five or ten people isn't enough to decide on leadership positions.
Third of all, I find the line "it would be great not to have to appoint these positions" to be appalling. That implies that if there aren't enough people at the meeting, the possibility exists that leadership roles appointed. No. If there are not enough people at the meeting, that means that you can't have a vote. It doesn't mean appointments. This is a community organization; leadership must be determined by the community. That means a vote, and a vote of as large a segment of the community as is possible to get.
Fourth of all, I find Kevin's apparent role as kingmaker, talking to people about leadership roles in private, to be unsettling. I respect Kevin's desire to jolt WMNE into action and finally get it to incorporated status, but at every step of the way he has cut corners in order to move it forward, and we're now well past the point where corners can be cut.
I strongly suggest that at the upcoming meeting, rather than force a vote before everyone is ready (i.e. has a full understanding of what is being voted on, who is running, and what the organization is going to look like), you instead use the time to clearly define who is running for what position, what the roles and responsibilities of each position are, what kind of organization WMNE is aming for, and what the bylaws of the organization are - including the election bylaws. Then, one that's all decided, you put all of it into an email and send it to the Boston list and the Connecticut list, and you open it all up for discussion, which should happen on the Boston list, where everyone can see it. Voting itself should also be done online, so that everyone that is interested can participate, including people that can't make meetings or don't go to meetings but are still interested.
I personally have no interest in a leadership position in WMNE, as I'm no longer in New England and it would make no sense to lead from afar, so please don't take this as political maneuvering. However as things stand I would not consider a leadership body elected on Saturday to be at all legitimate, owing the the failures outlined above. I've been waiting for two years for WMNE to become a registered non-profit with formal leadership and possibly a budget, but this isn't the way to do it. You can't elect a leadership body without bylaws that state what elected officials do and what rules they must follow, and you can't vote on either a leadership body or the bylaws that govern them if you're not given advance notice of what you're voting for.
I hope that you, the community, will take these thoughts into consideration.
Yours in absence, Sven Manguard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.comwrote:
Hey all,
First of all, sorry for the delay in this e-mail, as real life has been getting in the way, so I am now able to send out the e-mail officially announcing the meeting on Saturday from 2-4 in room 214 of the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences building.
I have already spoken to some of you about running in the election that will be held on Saturday, assuming that we have at least 5-10 persons present, but if you are interested in running for President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, or Community Liaison, let me know, because it would be great not to have to appoint these positions. Additionally, we will be discussion the Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Loves Libraries, both of which are going on this month. Additionally, Open Access Week is occurring the week of October 20th, so that can also be something that is discussed, as there are at least two colleges that I know of that are planning something, so it might be good to coordinate any help that could be done between the other institutions.
Finally, if you are planning on going, please respond on the Meetup page for now, as I am going to get the Wiki page up and running shortly. If too few people are planning on going, I will cancel l the meeting, and reschedule voting to occur within the next week or so, online.
Useful links:
Agenda: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_England/5_October_2013 Link to Meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/wikipedia-5/events/143013002/
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
If that's really all this is, why are we even electing positions at all. Why isn't it just "Hey, I would like to put myself down as a formal contact, and if anyone else wants to join me, please let me know and I'll loop you in".
We don't need a President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Community Liaison for an informal group that speaks to AffCom. We don't need an *election* for an informal group that speaks to AffCom. We need a list of two to four names, and that's pretty much it. If the only intent of the group potentially being elected on Saturday is to be a point of contact for AffCom, it's being done entirely in the wrong way.
For that matter, didn't we decide on Kevin and Maia being the informal group that speaks to AffCom (towards the end of the annual meeting), or was that for something else entirely?
-- Sven
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The important thing to remember is that WMNE has decided not to have any sort of formal incorporation for the medium term; as I understand it, the purpose of a committee is largely to give AffCom a defined contact group of self-organized volunteers to talk to (for a humble "usergroup", rather than for a chapter), and I don't think something like a bylaws is even being contemplated.
This informal stage is just one step, and of course if there was anything like a push to chapterdom, more bylaws specifics, etc, would be needed.
Although Kevin should definitely have done more advance publicity on this, this is certainly a symptom of inexperience rather than ill intent, and hopefully through this process we'll also recruit more experienced planners for future events.
Thanks, Richard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Sven Manguard svenmanguard@gmail.comwrote:
I know that, as I am no longer in Boston, my opinion probably carries a little less weight than it did when I was still in the area, however as someone that still cares deeply about Wikimedia New England, I feel that I have to respond to this.
There is not a single thing in the email Kevin sent that I don't strongly object to.
First of all, at the annual meetup we were given a promise that before we voted on *anything* someone would write up and email the list an explanation of the various incorporation options, and how officers would work, and give people time to digest this and suggest changes. Now I'm pretty sure that I haven't missed any emails, and I know I'm still on the mailing list, but I haven't gotten that explanation. So even if I were in Boston to vote in person, what is being asked for is for people to go to meeting without knowing a) who the candidates are in advance, and b) any real details about the organization that these people would be elected to.
Second of all, even if we were to have been given this information, and had an opportunity to discuss this and propose changes ahead of time, five people is in now way an appropriate size for the minimum number of people voting on these positions. Even ten people is too low. The recent annual meeting brought in two dozen people. A few years ago the annual meeting brought in even more people. Five or ten people isn't enough to decide on leadership positions.
Third of all, I find the line "it would be great not to have to appoint these positions" to be appalling. That implies that if there aren't enough people at the meeting, the possibility exists that leadership roles appointed. No. If there are not enough people at the meeting, that means that you can't have a vote. It doesn't mean appointments. This is a community organization; leadership must be determined by the community. That means a vote, and a vote of as large a segment of the community as is possible to get.
Fourth of all, I find Kevin's apparent role as kingmaker, talking to people about leadership roles in private, to be unsettling. I respect Kevin's desire to jolt WMNE into action and finally get it to incorporated status, but at every step of the way he has cut corners in order to move it forward, and we're now well past the point where corners can be cut.
I strongly suggest that at the upcoming meeting, rather than force a vote before everyone is ready (i.e. has a full understanding of what is being voted on, who is running, and what the organization is going to look like), you instead use the time to clearly define who is running for what position, what the roles and responsibilities of each position are, what kind of organization WMNE is aming for, and what the bylaws of the organization are - including the election bylaws. Then, one that's all decided, you put all of it into an email and send it to the Boston list and the Connecticut list, and you open it all up for discussion, which should happen on the Boston list, where everyone can see it. Voting itself should also be done online, so that everyone that is interested can participate, including people that can't make meetings or don't go to meetings but are still interested.
I personally have no interest in a leadership position in WMNE, as I'm no longer in New England and it would make no sense to lead from afar, so please don't take this as political maneuvering. However as things stand I would not consider a leadership body elected on Saturday to be at all legitimate, owing the the failures outlined above. I've been waiting for two years for WMNE to become a registered non-profit with formal leadership and possibly a budget, but this isn't the way to do it. You can't elect a leadership body without bylaws that state what elected officials do and what rules they must follow, and you can't vote on either a leadership body or the bylaws that govern them if you're not given advance notice of what you're voting for.
I hope that you, the community, will take these thoughts into consideration.
Yours in absence, Sven Manguard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.comwrote:
Hey all,
First of all, sorry for the delay in this e-mail, as real life has been getting in the way, so I am now able to send out the e-mail officially announcing the meeting on Saturday from 2-4 in room 214 of the Boston University College of Arts and Sciences building.
I have already spoken to some of you about running in the election that will be held on Saturday, assuming that we have at least 5-10 persons present, but if you are interested in running for President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, or Community Liaison, let me know, because it would be great not to have to appoint these positions. Additionally, we will be discussion the Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Loves Libraries, both of which are going on this month. Additionally, Open Access Week is occurring the week of October 20th, so that can also be something that is discussed, as there are at least two colleges that I know of that are planning something, so it might be good to coordinate any help that could be done between the other institutions.
Finally, if you are planning on going, please respond on the Meetup page for now, as I am going to get the Wiki page up and running shortly. If too few people are planning on going, I will cancel l the meeting, and reschedule voting to occur within the next week or so, online.
Useful links:
Agenda: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_England/5_October_2013 Link to Meetup page: http://www.meetup.com/wikipedia-5/events/143013002/
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
I, for one, would love to see more discussion happening on the mailing list(s). In-person meetings (and real-time communication like IRC) doesn't seem appropriate at this point. I've got a family at home and other weekend obligations; before I find babysitting and make the trek to <real world location>, I'd like to have some confidence that all other means of communication/organization were exhausted. Voting on positions doesn't seem to meet that bar. We can certainly do nominations online (either on a wiki page or on the mailing list), and I'll volunteer to set up a Selectricity instance if we need to run a secret ballot. --scott
Hey all,
In regards to Sven’s comments, I think official positions would make it easier so that we could have designated persons doing designated work (i.e. the secretary takes notes). In terms of the Connecticut mailing list, if we can, we should merge it into the Boston one and maybe create a New England list, because the Connecticut list had one post in around five years until we started using it this summer. In terms of elections, I am all for doing something online, but do we want to have a meeting on Saturday? If not, then I need to know soon so that we can cancel it and notify people that we are doing an about-face on something that we planned for months. I do like Scott’s idea of a secret ballot should we decide to go that way, and I would love to learn how to do that so that we can adequately figure this stuff out in time.
In terms to discussing things off the list, I have been in contact with AffCom and Pharos in regards to becoming a user group. A summary of the AffCom stuff was the signing of the User Group Agreement alongside Maia, and all that needs to be done is to copy the names from the July event over onto the WMNE page, to show current interest and to update it. In terms of discussions with Pharos, I have been mentored by him and talked about the running of the group in order to figure out how to more easily run everything. We haven’t been engaging in any illicit activities, and I have never had any ill will behind it, as Pharos attested in an earlier e-mail. I have also been balancing school and other extracurricular activities, so that is why I haven’t been as consistent as I have wanted to in the past month or so.
I hope this answers everything, and I look forward to responses from others.
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
From: C. Scott Ananian Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:54 AM To: Sven Manguard Cc: Connecticut Wikimedians ; Boston Wikipedians ; James Hare ; Affiliations Committee list Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-boston] Meeting time and other announcements
I, for one, would love to see more discussion happening on the mailing list(s). In-person meetings (and real-time communication like IRC) doesn't seem appropriate at this point. I've got a family at home and other weekend obligations; before I find babysitting and make the trek to <real world location>, I'd like to have some confidence that all other means of communication/organization were exhausted. Voting on positions doesn't seem to meet that bar. We can certainly do nominations online (either on a wiki page or on the mailing list), and I'll volunteer to set up a Selectricity instance if we need to run a secret ballot. --scott
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all of the comments thus far. Here are some of my thoughts:
I agree that it would be a good idea to have some sort of set of goals and specific talking points laid out before we actually meet again. Perhaps we can start some kind of wiki (anonymous, if need be) to list issues that ppl would like to discuss either by phone, Hangout, or in person. I also agree that it might be better if we can do a phone conference or Google hangout or similar before we meet in person if it's going to be more difficult for folks to attend a physical meeting. I'd be happy to get a simple outline going on etherpad or similar, if folks think this would be useful.
Regarding incorporation, it would help me to see a breakdown of benefits and what would be expected of group members after this potentially happens. And then ppl could provide feedback. I will admit that I'm still a little unclear of the process, even though I signed that doc...
On the issue of the mailing lists, it sounds like a good idea to join CT and Boston/NE into one. I didn't even realize there was a CT list until now! Hi, CT folks :)
Regarding positions, I can see why they would be warranted for a group with definite goals and plans. But it sounds like we might need more discussion first about just what those goals and plans are/should be. I would not be in favor of appointing positions, however. I like ppl's ideas about an online vote if need be, similar to the process used to vote for candidates on the WM Board.
Lastly, I appreciate the comments of everyone here and I'm hopeful that we can keep up the conversations before we move toward the next level for us as a group. As an anecdote, this past weekend I was at a reunion of a Peace Corps group with members hailing from all over who have stayed together and met as a group every few years since their service ended around 1970. I interviewed every one individually about why this group was able to stick together, when most Peace Corps volunteers just go their separate ways after their service. Every single one of them acknowledged that without the leadership of one particular guy, the group would have dissolved long ago. So Kevin, it's awesome that you have so far taken on responsibility for organizing meetings, and I thank you for it. Sven, it is so obvious that you care deeply for this group, and I also thank you for your long-standing commitment and suggestions, even now from afar. You rule! I hope we can all keep a civil dialogue going as we move forward with constructive ideas and feedback on things we can do better for the future.
As for this weekend, I'd be happy to postpone it; I'll speak for myself in saying that I have my hands quite full getting ready for our upcoming events... I'm excited for the Mass History edit-a-thons later this month (I'll be at the Schlessinger one if anyone's going), and I'm also getting some wonderful feedback in advance of the Ada Lovelace Day event, which is likely to be attended by a slew of Brown students who are not yet Wikipedia editors. Looking forward to hearing from others of you with your input!
all the best, maia
maiaw.com | 917-553-6158 | @20tauri | WPuser:girona7
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.comwrote:
Hey all,
In regards to Sven’s comments, I think official positions would make it easier so that we could have designated persons doing designated work (i.e. the secretary takes notes). In terms of the Connecticut mailing list, if we can, we should merge it into the Boston one and maybe create a New England list, because the Connecticut list had one post in around five years until we started using it this summer. In terms of elections, I am all for doing something online, but do we want to have a meeting on Saturday? If not, then I need to know soon so that we can cancel it and notify people that we are doing an about-face on something that we planned for months. I do like Scott’s idea of a secret ballot should we decide to go that way, and I would love to learn how to do that so that we can adequately figure this stuff out in time.
In terms to discussing things off the list, I have been in contact with AffCom and Pharos in regards to becoming a user group. A summary of the AffCom stuff was the signing of the User Group Agreement alongside Maia, and all that needs to be done is to copy the names from the July event over onto the WMNE page, to show current interest and to update it. In terms of discussions with Pharos, I have been mentored by him and talked about the running of the group in order to figure out how to more easily run everything. We haven’t been engaging in any illicit activities, and I have never had any ill will behind it, as Pharos attested in an earlier e-mail. I have also been balancing school and other extracurricular activities, so that is why I haven’t been as consistent as I have wanted to in the past month or so.
I hope this answers everything, and I look forward to responses from others.
Sincerely,
Kevin Rutherford
*From:* C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:54 AM *To:* Sven Manguard svenmanguard@gmail.com *Cc:* Connecticut Wikimedians wikimedia-connecticut@lists.wikimedia.org; Boston Wikipedians Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org ; James Harejames.hare@wikidc.org; Affiliations Committee list affcom@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-boston] Meeting time and other announcements
I, for one, would love to see more discussion happening on the mailing list(s). In-person meetings (and real-time communication like IRC) doesn't seem appropriate at this point. I've got a family at home and other weekend obligations; before I find babysitting and make the trek to <real world location>, I'd like to have some confidence that all other means of communication/organization were exhausted. Voting on positions doesn't seem to meet that bar. We can certainly do nominations online (either on a wiki page or on the mailing list), and I'll volunteer to set up a Selectricity instance if we need to run a secret ballot. --scott
Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
Wikimedia-boston mailing list Wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-boston
Dear wiki-wise,
I agree that it would be a good idea to have some sort of set of goals and specific talking points laid out before we actually meet again. Perhaps we can start some kind of wiki (anonymous, if need be) to list issues that ppl would like to discuss either by phone, Hangout, or in person.
This seems like an easy place to start (and supports anonymity) : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_New_England
On the issue of the mailing lists, it sounds like a good idea to join CT and Boston/NE into one. I didn't even realize there was a CT list until now! Hi, CT folks :)
Hello indeed! :-)
Kevin, it's awesome that you have so far taken on responsibility for organizing meetings, and I thank you for it. Sven, it is so obvious that you care deeply for this group, and I also thank you for your long-standing commitment and suggestions, even now from afar. You rule! I hope we can all keep a civil dialogue going as we move forward with constructive ideas and feedback on things we can do better for the future.
Beautifully said. Thank you likewise for keeping us sane, optimistic, and focused on great events.
Also looking forward to the coming editathons, SJ
wikimedia-boston@lists.wikimedia.org