hi,
Cross posted to the Wikimedia-India, Wikimedia-Mumbai and Wikimedia-Pune mailing lists.
I agree with points made by User:AroundTheGlobe and Ashwin in the thread. I think holding a proper discussion on the modalities of the Organising Committee would ensure that the event will not happen in 2011. We would therefore request that the Chapter consider the Organising Committee proposed comprising of various Community and Foundation members and provide a list of members that it would like to be represented by as soon as possible.
I would also like to add that Jimmy Wales has expressed availability to attend the event on November 18, 19 and 20.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
On 9 June 2011 20:53, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Arjuna,
Thanks for your response. The issue here is time - and we dont have any of it. We are running against time for the logistics. For the scale of the conference we have planned, we should have had an Event Organising Committee in place by now and have started locking the logistics. If we are to host this we require ample time to ensure a successful event.
We have made public our intention to host this conference way back in April and even requested people to volunteer for the Organising Committee and various sub-committees on this same mailing list last month. You yourself came to Pune Meetup 14 in May and were given a presentation on the preparations until then. The next we heard was only on this mailing list earlier this week. All through this the chapter was silent and no other community came forward with a rival bid. On the other hand, communities across India have come forward supporting us and we are grateful for that. Several people reverted to our volunteer appeal and several people pledged remote support.
It is not that Mumbai/Pune are against any possible rival bid, it is just that time is against us at this point. We have done a lot of work this far which will all go down the drain if things are not firmed up ASAP. *We request that if there is anyone who wants to place a rival bid, they simply email this list with "A non binding expression of interest" within the next 24 hours.* We can then wait and give requisite time for you to formally place something - and there can be a fair evaluation of all the proposed hosts. If there isnt anyone else, let us not waste time and get going on where we should have been right now - off the black board and onto the ground. We have lost enough time as things stand. I hope this is fair enough for all parties concerned.
Kind Regards, User:AroundTheGlobe
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 16:02:08 +0530 From: arjunaraoc@googlemail.com To: wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Community-Chapter Relations
Hi Wikimedians,
Thanks Ashwin, for initiating the feedback thread on the communication from the Chapter. As Chapter starts engaging with the Community, I look this as a positive sign to build the relationship ('storming'[1] part of a typical team building process).
Of course, there are whole lot of stuff that EC has initiated (Donations, projects, City/Language SIG) and we look forward to the feedback on that as well and request that the feedback be not colored by the perception generated and shared on Wiki India Conference topic.
Keep this discussion going, so that we can collect feedback for a day or two and address the same after discussions in EC.
Let me assure you, that we value all your feedback and will revert to you with further updates on the communication in few days time.
Thanks Arjuna Rao Chavala President, Wikimedia Chapter [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman%27s_stages_of_group_development On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
The national chapter recently informed the community about its
Membership and Community engagement plan -June 2011.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003346.html
In that document, the regulatory framework for conduct of
Wikiconferences was released.
http://wiki.wikimedia.in/India_Wiki_Conference_Framework Shortly thereafter, a clarification was issued.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003378.html
Members of the community must be puzzled at the need for clarification
from the Chapter on the issues of its regulatory framework when there was no discussion online. This is because the recent announcement of the framework, in conjunction with other issues, led to the community believing that the chapter had forsaken it.
A little history - the idea for a Wikiconference was mooted way back in
March by the Mumbai community and they asked the Pune community to co-host it to which the Pune community agreed. As India now has a national chapter, we naturally asked for their support more than two months ago. For more than two months they were silent. Yesterday, they responded saying that the community was invited to submit their proposal, duly modified as per the said framework, and resubmit it for consideration with other bids. The cavaliar treatment of the serious efforts put in to date by the communities and the contents of the Framework of Regulations were disturbing to the community.
At the face off it, one may just consider the Regulatory Framework as
just another logical and reasonable document, but its language, text and subtext upset the community, in light of Chapter's attitude.
The first and over-riding issue was the type of language used and its
indication of the relation between chapter and communities. We all know that the Wikimedia Foundation encourages national chapters so that the community and creation of knowledge by them is facilitated. However, the language herein clearly gives a message - that the Indian chapter is boss and all Indian wikimedian communities are subservient to it.
While that is a great inequity in itself, the community was also
aggrieved that the framework has been foisted on them without discussion, without any attempt to get them to participate and buy in into the plan, without community consensus and without any consideration of the community's interests. This feudalistic attitude is considered to be an anachronism in volunteer driven communities of the 21st Centuries especially in India. So, no matter whether the framework is good or bad, sensible or not, the approach to the community taken by the chapter is to be firmly objected to and resisted.
The Mumbai & Pune community supports the chapter, and have defended the
chapter on number of occasions in email discussions. Members of the two communities have enthusiastically joined the chapter once membership opened. A member of the Mumbai and a member of the Pune community are the first two members to join by NEFT and physical cheque. To the best of my knowledge 24 members from Pune joined the chapter in response to Arjuna Rao Chavala's appeal for member ships when he came last month to our Pune meetup.
We earnestly believe that India needs an active, sympathetic,
facilitative and supportive chapter. We look forward to heartily cooperating with such a chapter - alas, the chapter's latest tune was nothing of that kind. It seemed to be indicative of wanting power and to dominate.
The third issue, were the "black" provisions of the framework. Each of
the sentences seemed to imply negative connotations for the community.
To give you some examples of the "black" provisions - Example one - Finance The responsibilities of the Host city team included "Fund raising",
whereas the corresponding responsibility of the Chapter Team was "Responsible for facilitating financial operations and accountability for finances for the event".
The message conveyed was that the community was responsible for
raiising funds but only the chapter was allowed to decide how it was spent. No commitment of raising monetary support was made by the chapter for the event.
Example two - Logistics The responsibility for the "Host city team" is mentioned as being
"responsible for City logistics in terms of Venue, local transportation, stay assistance". However, the city community was to be given no say in the decision-making i.e. organisation of the programme, guest list, expenditure etc. The OC head was to be some person of chapter Executive Committee. That meant, the community had to do the hard work but the chapter would take credit. If the conference succeeded, it was the chapter's moment of glory. Whereas if the conference failed, the communities would be blamed.
Example three - Venue After three months of spade work by Mumbai-Pune, when no other city had
shown any inclination to take up the project, the chapter thanked the city community for the "proposal", came up with this framework, asks the city to make changes as per the framework and resubmit it for consideration within two weeks or so. Then, all proposals/bids would be considered by the chapter and the decision communicated.
For two months, the community waited with bated breath for the
chapter's response and was floored when it eventually came. There were no emails of encouragement, no saying "we support you", no saying "great job guys, lets give it to Mumbai-Pune this time, next time, cities can bid". The community, not surprisingly, were forced to construe such a response as lack of support by the chapter.
So what was to be done? The community was furious at being treated this
way. They could not acquiese to this kind of 'fatwa' type of decision-making by the chapter. It was felt that if the community accepted this state of affairs this time around, it would act as a precedent and set the tone for all future interactions between community and chapter.
So, we indicated to the chapter informally through various people that
this sort of thing just will not do. We were prepared for a confrontation on matter of principle. However, thanks to various third party back-of-the-scenes attempts, the chapter is now beginning to realise this. A member of the chapter Executive Committee has given a clarification. You can read it here -
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003378.html
The community's demands are few and equitable. Firstly, treat us like equals and stakeholders. Amongst us, chapter
will then be first among equals. The community will not accept any other form of relationship.
The second request is always ask our opinion before issuing policy
especially for a thing like Wikiconference which has not been conducted before. The chapter must be consultative and facilitative of the community. The community will not accept orders by fiat.
Lastly, this present framework will not do. We need a framework which
gives autonomy to the Organising Committee to successfully pull off an event of this scale and nature. While organising this Wikiconference, the community is willing to develop a sensible, practical framework which can be debated and finalised after the event is over. In this manner best practices and lessons learnt will be incorporated.
We felt that you as a community member should know what was going on
and what happened and how we responded to it. Our next step is to list the issues concerning how the Wikiconference should be conducted and discuss them on the list. At present, an active discussion on this is going on between Pune and Mumbai communities off-list. In the meantime, we invite the chapter to Mumbai where these issues can be discussed amicably face to face and resolved.
We thank all those who spoke out in favour of the community. Please write back with your views and support as this concerns every
one of us.
Ashwin Baindur _______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
hi,
Just a clarification, since I was a little flustered while writing this -
On 9 June 2011 22:46, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohandas@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
I agree with points made by User:AroundTheGlobe and Ashwin in the thread. I think holding a proper discussion on the modalities of the Organising Committee would ensure that the event will not happen in 2011.
I meant that having a discussion about the structure of the Organising Committee as the Chapter has suggested would ensure that no event will happen in 2011.
warm regards, Pradeep
Since my post yesterday morning, we have had responses from the Chapter on the list. It is heartening to note that the chapter is beginning to look on the community as a source of input. We welcome this attitude of the Chapter and look forward to an improved relationship with them.
But as User:Around the Globe pointed out - Time is of the essence. Part of the reason the community is frustrated with the chapter is its time lag in any action. Slow responses are detrimental to the chapter's interest. Aside from the fact that such late responses will cause inconvenience to all stakeholders thereby invoking their displeasure, there is an opportunity cost that may lead to no result or failure in some cases and reduced success in others. In the day of Skype, Facebook. Twitter, emails etc it is difficult to understand why a small group of people cannot electronically confer and make up their minds on most issues within 48 or 72 hours.
There may be another explanation - love of bureaucracy. The Chapter must realise that it is actually quite a small team. As we know small is beautiful and small teams can be agile and extremely responsive. Should a love of bureaucracy be the case, we urge the chapter to cut down the inessentials and concentrate on the core issues and decide quickly.
Paraphrasing Gen Patton and mixing up aphorisms - A mediocre plan energetically executed today is better than a brilliant plan tomorrow, partly because tomorrow may never come. As of now, only only way to resolve this is for the Chapter to make a conscious effort to make up its mind quickly and act fast.
We are hopeful the Chapter will take this feedback from the community in the right spirit, i.e. as an improvement point rather than criticism, and act on it so that this issue becomes redundant henceforth.
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
hi,
We think a few specific points with relation to the framework need to be brought out -
1. The Chapter Executive Committee should not take the sole responsibility for selecting a bid. While the Chapter Executive Committee is an examplary body, a group consisting of members from the Executive Committee, the community and Foundation could be ideal to select a specific city in case of bids placed by cities. 2. The Organizing Committee (OC) suggested could turn out to be very big. Specifics on the number or limitation on number of people in the OC would be a great clarification. Managing an event is a big deal. The head of the Organizing Committee must be able to concentrate on the event and not worry about managing his Organizing Committee too much. As Tinu said - as minimal as possible to reduce bureaucracy and facilitate decision making to make the event a success. 3. It would be great to clarify on the venue for the AGM, whether it needs to be held in Bangalore/Karnataka (since chapter is registered in Karnataka) or can be held anywhere in India. If the AGM can be held only in Bangalore/Karnataka, it would be great to strike out objective no. 3: "Preferably held together with Annual General body Meeting (AGM) of Wikimedia Chapter, as it will help broader participation from across India in AGM and make for a vibrant and active membership base." altogether. I understand the use of word "preferably". But, if the Chapter can clarify on requirements of AGM venue, it would be great. 4. The point about the Head of the Organizing Committee should also be discussed. I think that it would be better for the Organizing Committee to select/elect the Head once the OC is constituted. To say that the head of the OC *should* be from the Chapter is rather wrong.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
Hi Pradeep:
Thanks much for the feedback - a request - could we edit the Wiki please - it might be easier for everyone to keep track of it?
On the issue of the AGM, it is something that we are seeking clarification on.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 10 June 2011 11:14, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohandas@gmail.com wrote:
hi, We think a few specific points with relation to the framework need to be brought out -
- The Chapter Executive Committee should not take the sole responsibility
for selecting a bid. While the Chapter Executive Committee is an examplary body, a group consisting of members from the Executive Committee, the community and Foundation could be ideal to select a specific city in case of bids placed by cities. 2. The Organizing Committee (OC) suggested could turn out to be very big. Specifics on the number or limitation on number of people in the OC would be a great clarification. Managing an event is a big deal. The head of the Organizing Committee must be able to concentrate on the event and not worry about managing his Organizing Committee too much. As Tinu said - as minimal as possible to reduce bureaucracy and facilitate decision making to make the event a success. 3. It would be great to clarify on the venue for the AGM, whether it needs to be held in Bangalore/Karnataka (since chapter is registered in Karnataka) or can be held anywhere in India. If the AGM can be held only in Bangalore/Karnataka, it would be great to strike out objective no. 3: "Preferably held together with Annual General body Meeting (AGM) of Wikimedia Chapter, as it will help broader participation from across India in AGM and make for a vibrant and active membership base." altogether. I understand the use of word "preferably". But, if the Chapter can clarify on requirements of AGM venue, it would be great. 4. The point about the Head of the Organizing Committee should also be discussed. I think that it would be better for the Organizing Committee to select/elect the Head once the OC is constituted. To say that the head of the OC *should* be from the Chapter is rather wrong.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
I have made a copy of the framework for editing by all. Let the original remain untouched at the moment for easy reference.
http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Draft_India_Wiki_Conference_Framework
Some cleanup required. Will do later if nobody does it as short of time now.
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur ------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Gautam John gautam@prathambooks.orgwrote:
Hi Pradeep:
Thanks much for the feedback - a request - could we edit the Wiki please - it might be easier for everyone to keep track of it?
On the issue of the AGM, it is something that we are seeking clarification on.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 10 June 2011 11:14, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohandas@gmail.com wrote:
hi, We think a few specific points with relation to the framework need to be brought out -
- The Chapter Executive Committee should not take the sole
responsibility
for selecting a bid. While the Chapter Executive Committee is an
examplary
body, a group consisting of members from the Executive Committee, the community and Foundation could be ideal to select a specific city in case
of
bids placed by cities. 2. The Organizing Committee (OC) suggested could turn out to be very big. Specifics on the number or limitation on number of people in the OC would
be
a great clarification. Managing an event is a big deal. The head of the Organizing Committee must be able to concentrate on the event and not
worry
about managing his Organizing Committee too much. As Tinu said - as
minimal
as possible to reduce bureaucracy and facilitate decision making to make
the
event a success. 3. It would be great to clarify on the venue for the AGM, whether it
needs
to be held in Bangalore/Karnataka (since chapter is registered in
Karnataka)
or can be held anywhere in India. If the AGM can be held only in Bangalore/Karnataka, it would be great to strike out objective no. 3: "Preferably held together with Annual General body Meeting (AGM) of Wikimedia Chapter, as it will help broader participation from across
India
in AGM and make for a vibrant and active membership base." altogether. I understand the use of word "preferably". But, if the Chapter can clarify
on
requirements of AGM venue, it would be great. 4. The point about the Head of the Organizing Committee should also be discussed. I think that it would be better for the Organizing Committee
to
select/elect the Head once the OC is constituted. To say that the head of the OC *should* be from the Chapter is rather wrong.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimedia-IN-PUN mailing list Wikimedia-IN-PUN@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-pun
Great! Thanks so much, Ashwin.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 10 June 2011 11:42, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
I have made a copy of the framework for editing by all. Let the original remain untouched at the moment for easy reference. http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Draft_India_Wiki_Conference_Framework Some cleanup required. Will do later if nobody does it as short of time now. Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Gautam John gautam@prathambooks.org wrote:
Hi Pradeep:
Thanks much for the feedback - a request - could we edit the Wiki please - it might be easier for everyone to keep track of it?
On the issue of the AGM, it is something that we are seeking clarification on.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 10 June 2011 11:14, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohandas@gmail.com wrote:
hi, We think a few specific points with relation to the framework need to be brought out -
- The Chapter Executive Committee should not take the sole
responsibility for selecting a bid. While the Chapter Executive Committee is an examplary body, a group consisting of members from the Executive Committee, the community and Foundation could be ideal to select a specific city in case of bids placed by cities. 2. The Organizing Committee (OC) suggested could turn out to be very big. Specifics on the number or limitation on number of people in the OC would be a great clarification. Managing an event is a big deal. The head of the Organizing Committee must be able to concentrate on the event and not worry about managing his Organizing Committee too much. As Tinu said - as minimal as possible to reduce bureaucracy and facilitate decision making to make the event a success. 3. It would be great to clarify on the venue for the AGM, whether it needs to be held in Bangalore/Karnataka (since chapter is registered in Karnataka) or can be held anywhere in India. If the AGM can be held only in Bangalore/Karnataka, it would be great to strike out objective no. 3: "Preferably held together with Annual General body Meeting (AGM) of Wikimedia Chapter, as it will help broader participation from across India in AGM and make for a vibrant and active membership base." altogether. I understand the use of word "preferably". But, if the Chapter can clarify on requirements of AGM venue, it would be great. 4. The point about the Head of the Organizing Committee should also be discussed. I think that it would be better for the Organizing Committee to select/elect the Head once the OC is constituted. To say that the head of the OC *should* be from the Chapter is rather wrong.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimedia-IN-PUN mailing list Wikimedia-IN-PUN@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-pun
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Today is 11 June. Two months to the day that User:Around The Globe aka Wheredevelsdare suggested a WikiConference. That particular thread was well received and replied to by the following - * A global trustee of WMF. * An editor from Pune Community. * A Chapter Member * Global Development Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation * A member of international community.
Since then, Arjuna Rao Chawala attended a meetup in Pune on 14 May 2011 about the Conference. Much debate has taken place since then on which a key topic has been Chapter's recalcitrance to endorse the Conference. Two days ago, Jimbo accepted our invitation and gave firm dates for visiting India. Yet we hear no word from the Chapter.
When we protested the Chapter's treatment of the Community, we were actually acknowledging the Chapter's legitimacy and were basically fighting to get the voice of the community heard. Strangely, the Chapter has been silent except for thanking community members for the feedback and other unrelated issues. Our expectation was that the chapter would wake up from its reverie and say words to this effect -
*"Gosh guys, sorry, we were lost in thought elsewhere! Of course we are with you, you go right ahead and how can we help you?"*
It is quite baffling as to why the Chapter is dilly-dallying in whole-heartedly supporting a meaningful endeavour by the community which it was formed to serve.
Obviously, internal issues are absorbing the Chapter to the extent that Community issues are not getting the attention they deserve.
If we have no concrete message of support by Sunday night, we would be forced to begin planning and pray that the Chapter resolves its internal issues sooner rather than later and decides to partner the Community in hosting the Conference at the earliest. We have waited with good grace while the Chapter took two months for its initial unfortunate response on 07 June and tomorrow will be the sixth day since then.
Strangely, I feel like Alice in Wonderland. After two months of running forward, we find ourselves standing till at the same spot - still waiting for Chapter approval. Sometime in the very near future, work will have to begin with or without the Chapter. Its upto the Chapter and I for one feel that it would be most unfortunate if the Chapter were to be absent from our planning and preparations.
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur ------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gautam John gautam@prathambooks.orgwrote:
Great! Thanks so much, Ashwin.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
hi,
I've just added my suggestions to the talk page.
warm regards, Pradeep
On 10 June 2011 11:42, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
I have made a copy of the framework for editing by all. Let the original remain untouched at the moment for easy reference.
http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Draft_India_Wiki_Conference_Framework
Some cleanup required. Will do later if nobody does it as short of time now.
Warm regards,
Ashwin Baindur
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Gautam John gautam@prathambooks.orgwrote:
Hi Pradeep:
Thanks much for the feedback - a request - could we edit the Wiki please - it might be easier for everyone to keep track of it?
On the issue of the AGM, it is something that we are seeking clarification on.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/
On 10 June 2011 11:14, Pradeep Mohandas pradeep.mohandas@gmail.com wrote:
hi, We think a few specific points with relation to the framework need to be brought out -
- The Chapter Executive Committee should not take the sole
responsibility
for selecting a bid. While the Chapter Executive Committee is an
examplary
body, a group consisting of members from the Executive Committee, the community and Foundation could be ideal to select a specific city in
case of
bids placed by cities. 2. The Organizing Committee (OC) suggested could turn out to be very
big.
Specifics on the number or limitation on number of people in the OC
would be
a great clarification. Managing an event is a big deal. The head of the Organizing Committee must be able to concentrate on the event and not
worry
about managing his Organizing Committee too much. As Tinu said - as
minimal
as possible to reduce bureaucracy and facilitate decision making to make
the
event a success. 3. It would be great to clarify on the venue for the AGM, whether it
needs
to be held in Bangalore/Karnataka (since chapter is registered in
Karnataka)
or can be held anywhere in India. If the AGM can be held only in Bangalore/Karnataka, it would be great to strike out objective no. 3: "Preferably held together with Annual General body Meeting (AGM) of Wikimedia Chapter, as it will help broader participation from across
India
in AGM and make for a vibrant and active membership base." altogether. I understand the use of word "preferably". But, if the Chapter can clarify
on
requirements of AGM venue, it would be great. 4. The point about the Head of the Organizing Committee should also be discussed. I think that it would be better for the Organizing Committee
to
select/elect the Head once the OC is constituted. To say that the head
of
the OC *should* be from the Chapter is rather wrong.
warm regards, Pradeep Mohandas
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
Wikimedia-IN-PUN mailing list Wikimedia-IN-PUN@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-pun
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list Wikimedia-in-mum@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
wikimedia-in-pun@lists.wikimedia.org