A very short word to say that yesterday I attended a convention in
Paris, organised by the UMP
UMP is the first (as far as I know) political party in France, leader
being Mr Sarkozy, current minister of interior in France and a leading
candidate for the future presidential elections.
The convention was focused on education and research
(http://www.u-m-p-paris.org/article.php3?id_article=454) I was speaking
in a panel along with french internet entrepreneurs, the idea of the
panel not being to "inform" people, but rather to tell them about what
we were expecting/hoping from this party (and likely, ahum, well,
possibly, from the next government...).
After a short introduction to Wikipedia, with proper figures ("4,4
millions of french electors are visiting Wikipedia every month" - I
could see every one bending to write down the scary fact that 1/10
french electors was a Wikipedia user), I insisted on two facts.
First is the DADVSI law (which was supported by UMP - making them the
real bad guys for free software supporters) - please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI with this relevant bit
"The law was highly controversial within France for it could
significantly hamper free software, and also may significantly restrict
the right to make copies of copyrighted works for private use.
Second was to talk about the fact USA releases information in Public
Domain, versus our government (and more generally the EU, or most public
organisations) under classical cp. I mentionned as examples
* most pictures of french politicians on wp being from the US
governement (not the french gvt)
* Spatial research images from the NASA rather than ESA
The whole convention was *extremely* interesting (which actually amazed
me, because it is rather unusual to attend a convention and be
interested all along). I was in particular amazed at how understandable
people were (very little political talk), how specific and how ready to
state what was not working. It was very refreshing...
In terms of audience, well, I'd say a quite decent part of it was
parliament members and current or ancient ministers. Others being
typically presidents of universities etc... In short, powerful people.
I was very glad to finally meet Loic Lemeur, probably the famous blogger
in France, and who I read occasionnally but never had the opportunity to
meet. Also the creator of several internet success.
I was invited to later talk privately to the person in charge of ict et
al from the office of Mr Sarkozy. I'll try to take care of that in november.
Guys, I hope you all feel the power of what we are building. This is HUGE.
==Report from Frankfurt – October 2006==
<center>''Imagine a giant with a golden head, a brass chest, iron legs and
feet of clay; to develop this into a sustainably developing living
organization while preserving the essence of its life, such is our
(paraphrase and wink by the author of these lines are both released under
How to get all the people invited to the retreat in Frankfurt from October
20-22 2006 together, 21 wikimedians, comsisting of the full current
Wikimedia Foundation board, the Foundation officers, representatives from
the Chapters, plus one external invitee, how to get them to debate
constructively all the major challenges currently faced by Wikimedia in the
daytime, conversations which inevitably continue in the evening at and after
dinner and as usual deep into the night, and yet also how to have them all
awake and sharp again at 9am more or less punctually every next day – and
all that for three consecutive days? It was done. It happened. And I was
personally very happy with the shared enthusiasm and devotion I encountered
as well as with our excellent facilitator, without whom things would have
certainly run far less smoothly and efficiently as they in fact did ("we
should seriously consider appointing facilitators on-wiki for fundamental
debates" i thought).
well, we were supposed to do some real hard work, and we managed to do it
At the closing day, when it was discussed that some kind of report
("comprehensive, yet not too long") should be made to inform the community
about what the ''cabal had been doing this time'', my partner elise was of
course not around to prevent me from volunteering (she did of course
complain just now when i started to write these lines), so it's me who
happens to be the one to have written these lines ;-)
==Expectations and Vision==
On the very first day a list of expectations and desired outcomes was
sketched together, which comprised:
*Stronger organization (giant with clay feet)
*Directions for organizations and chapters
*Clear understanding governance as supports mission and fundraising support
*Help the group moving towards sustainability
*Role of Wikimedia Foundation, support projects
*Know each other better
*Shared understanding and agreement
*Honesty that leads to peace
*Have some fun
I daresay, all of these were effected in some way or another; if there were
some difficult moments as well, we also had a lot of fun working together.
Nevertheless, even when working hard, much time was consumed by getting
attuned to the topics and sometimes to each other as well, so let me here
express the often heard plea for a next follow-up meeting: a next step,
building on this first one. In my humble opinion a crucial next step as
well, because apart from bringing more detail in a practical sense, it will
also allow for much more in-depth discussions on many topics and concepts we
work with, yet often seem to lack the time for real investigation together
all too often.
==Strategies and Objectives==
In search of defining clearer strategies and objectives, among the important
themes we immediately agreed to focus upon were:
*Sustainable organizational structure for Wikimedia, Foundation and Chapters
(make a disctinction between Wikimedia as a movement and the Wikimedia
*Leadership in spreading free culture
*Global perspective, international involvement
Other themes were decided to be discussed at a later stage, "first things
first" was mandatory, we couldn't do-it-all in one weekend.. Among these
topics was a "Knowledge" versus "Content" discussion, which though very
important is just not as urgent as many other topics.
Pretty soon it became clear there was an essential agreement about a great
many things, some of which soon led to the new wordings of our vision and
mission statements, that the board is currently working out in detail.
Many organizational models were drawn and discussed, finally their number
was brought back to a handful, containing all essential bodies present and
desired. In all models there appeared an "advisory board" as well as at
least one ''blob'' named "council", one model even had three such ''blobs'',
in other words: ''to be continued''...
With the help of a ''SWOT'' analysis model (analysis through assesment of
Strengths versus Weaknesses, and Opportunities versus Threats, and combining
the four pairs of these), strategic objectives were defined in all areas
concerning "our business", we came up with 7 categories: ''organizational,
operations, finances and fundraising, program development, public relations
and messaging, technology, and legal''.
::::<small>Did you ever try a complex voting system with wikimedians IRL? I
can tell you this is fun, not just the voting, but also, just like on-wiki,
observing people voting. IRL there is more to see however, because each
person bodily participates. In our case, there were the seven categories
mentioned above, each with two or more topics attached below: there were 33
of such topics in total. Each person was given 3x3=9 votes to prioritize
these topics as tasks-to-do, either within 3, 12 or 24 months. "Having a
longer coffee-break" because you voted soon was not appreciated to be an
I will spare you all the details and instead give a summarized list of the
urgent to-do topics agreed upon (mind you, since they imply ''action'', all
these begin with a ''verb''), in alphabetical order:
*Clarify and redefine each committees' scope, role, authority and
*Clarify requirements for chapters
*Clarify role and function of each of the private mailing lists
*Create events committee
*Create relationships with educational partners
*Design a road-map for Wikimedia technology
*Develop regional conferences and programs
*Expand the board
*Improve analyses of projects and users
*Lobby governmental educational groups
*Manage customer/donor communication and relations
*Start (re-)organization and where necessary staffing
*Structure and organize PR
Since the meeting clearly agreed upon the strategic objectives and their
priorities, but had as such no authority to implement them officially, all
of these were at the end of the meeting "given into the hands of the board",
and I can tell you the people present are as anxious as you to see stuff
starting to be implemented one by one.
Anxious for the further implementation of the hard work we did together, as
well as for the follow-up so many hope will take place, I am confident that
the first step of solidifying the "giant's feet of clay" into some more
sustainable substance was in fact taken properly. Yet it is a first step and
many more must follow on the same path, which will step by step involve many
more people than the 21 at Frankfurt last weekend. Our main goals remain
unchallenged, although the exact wording may vary slightly, so we need your
help as well throughout the next stages of reorganization and expansion.
May I challenge you to envision boldly what we can accomplish together, just
as we were asked to do at the offset of the retreat? Can you imagine, within
12 months: "30 Chapters founded" - "500 Servers operational" - "An office
per continent" - "100,000 Articles reached in 10 European-language projects"
- "Wikimedia becoming the new standard for knowledge" - etcetera etcetera
etcetera... Can you imagine...[]...?
Let's make it happen.
> There is something else Oscar does not mention. Yes, we could have
> provided you with the SWOT outcome (it will be done), as well as with
> the brainstorming results of the actions outlined (it will be done as
> well, but for some confidential considerations).
> However, several of these actions proposed during the retreat should
> actually be approved by the board. Most of them are pretty clearly
> agreed upon by all board members. But for some propositions, questions
> were raised, not so much for the action itself, but rather on who is
> the lead of it, or what the timeline proposed is.
> The final decision on what the board should do is not under the
> authority of the participants, it is under the authority of the board
> itself. It would make no sense to announce you an action the board
> will take care of, if the board actually does not agree in doing it.
> Right ?
> So, we are listing (we is brad and I) the various actions points
> proposed, according to categories, and I will ask the board to clarify
> if it is a "yup" or a "nope". Except for confidential issues (in
> particular legal considerations), I think most will be transparent.
> It would be cool to be given a little bit of trust and time. Please.
I'd like to add something. Some people seem to be laboring under the
false impression that the outcomes of the retreat all exist in a single
lengthy electronic document, and that it would have been "easier" to
just dump that onto the list, or answer questions by copy-and-pasting
from it. We did not work that way. When you are together with people, it
undermines the benefits of meeting in person and defeats the purpose if
you continue to do everything on a computer. Not to mention that not
everyone has laptops, and their use was specifically discouraged for
most of the retreat.
As Anthere has alluded to, some of the results still need to be
organized, discussed further, and agreements reached. The board retreat
did not decide every course of action for the Wikimedia Foundation for
all time. Much more will be shared and discussed with various people in
various forums as we go forward. But we cannot recreate the entire
retreat for everyone who wasn't present, or produce a three-day-long
video for you to watch it all unfold.
Erik Zachte wrote:
>>As Anthere has alluded to, some of the results still need to be
>>organized, discussed further, and agreements reached. The board retreat
>>did not decide every course of action for the Wikimedia Foundation for
>>all time. Much more will be shared and discussed with various people in
>>various forums as we go forward. But we cannot recreate the entire
>>retreat for everyone who wasn't present, or produce a three-day-long
>>video for you to watch it all unfold.
>Michael, you seem to say that I and maybe others are overasking.
Others more than just you, Erik, and I chose not to respond to your
message directly because I didn't want to single you out. But I was a
little disappointed to see people responding to Oscar's effort in
creating his report by commenting that it "says nothing" and in other
ways calling it inadequate.
>What I did plead for was to share analysis, conclusions, priority lists, in
>short structured and condensated results, like SWOT and priority lists are
>meant to be, so that others can be informed and provide feedback before
>these are turned into decisions.
This is understandable, like Anthere I'm mostly asking for a little more
patience, as much in people's tone as in whether they have additional
requests or not. Most of the important conclusions were already in
Oscar's report. The analysis that went into it, Anthere has now posted
the SWOT list, and some of the rest we may be able to put together and
share as well. A few specific things, especially dealing with legal
concerns, need to be kept confidential.
Also, not everything we discussed was necessarily finalized, even with
respect to the small group that was present. Three days was good, but
hardly enough to tie up every loose end in such a very loosely
structured organization. For example, we worked on drafting a formal
vision and mission statement, but still had some wording issues to deal
with. I suggested that those be put forward for adoption by the
community in a referendum, and I'm looking forward to Board releasing
them in their final form.
Sorry Florence... is this a mean that you are waiting for someone who
seats on you?
I hope to understand in a bad way!
Data: 28.10.06 1.02
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] toward the future
<side note>"chair", not "chairperson", nor
"chairwoman" and anyone saying "chairman" will risk
being crushed by an ant</sidenote>
I don't understand any implication of your post, but IMHO Jimbo is a
person who looks far (very far).
Data: 27.10.06 23.10
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Board officers elected; Anthere is
Posting separately, a personal note:
I'm very glad that Anthere was unanimously elected to be the new
of the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who has seen and heard her
at one of the Wikimania conferences (or at any other) knows that
can represent the Foundation with incredible passion, intelligence
charisma. This change of officer roles marks a significant step
forward for Wikimedia as a non-profit governed primarily by members
its project communities. Nor was this in any way a move against
in fact, it was him who had orchestrated the whole thing. ;-)
Peace & Love,
Considering your new position, dear Jimbo, I think that you will have
more free time to meet Italian and Swiss chapters.
I know that you like good food and good wine and for this reason I
think that you have never known Italy or Switzerland very well
otherwise you would like these regions ;)
We are waiting you.
Data: 28.10.06 16.53
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Board officers elected; Anthere is
Damian Finol wrote:
> Speaking of world tours, I wonder if we will see anyone from the
> touring South America some time soon? We are a continent too, and
> there are tons of people from many South American Countries
> Chile, Argentina, Brazil) that would love to have a regional
> meeting up with the WMF :P.
I was in Brazil twice this year, and plan to visit South America
next year at least once or twice. I understand that a Venezuelan
chapter may be in the process of forming, and I would love to visit
a launch event of that...
foundation-l mailing list
Let's not forget that Jimbo is a "life member" of the WMF and will always be
remembered as the founder of the WMF (as opposed to his role as founder of
Wikipedia and the impetus for many sister projects):
Good luck to Anthere and all the new officers of the Foundation Board!
Alex T. Roshuk
member: Legal Department, Chair pro tempore, Fundraising Committee
(original drafter of WMF bylaws)
| Thanks so much for these kind words, and yes. Selling the concept to
| the world is what I do best, and that's what I love to do. That, and
| visiting Wikipedians everywhere, getting to know so many wonderful people.
| > Hurray for Anthere: you deserve this so much!
| Indeed she does. :)
A little bit of history first :-)
When Wikipedia was created, it was supported by a
for-profit company. It was a wikipedia.com, not a
wikipedia.org. The project was small enough that it
was not so difficult to sustain it. But it became
The Wikimedia Foundation was created in 2003 by Jimbo,
to provide a technical, financial and legal
infrastructure to our projects. It was a BIG step. It
was a deliberate move to ensure the knowledge and
wisdom of all peoples would be garanteed a nurturing
environnement to flourish for the benefits of
I was an editor at that time, I remember very well
raising questions about the bylaws of that
yet-to-be-born Foundation, and I now realise I never
really said "thank you" to Jimbo for making that first
step to allow the child to grow up. So, thank you
Today, we have reached a new step. From the baby
Foundation, where nothing existed but Jimbo's vision,
a few servers, a few domain names, growing projects
and five fresh new board members, we have evolved into
something else. The WMF owns hundred of servers, to
operate among others a website ranking amongst the 10
most visited websites in the world, many domain names,
some trademarks. We went from a few thousand dollars
revenue to over a milion dollars revenue. The
Wikimedia family also features 7 chapters. And the
world loves us (including those trying to buy usn or
those inviting us in court).
In fall 2005, we started feeling the organisation of
WMF was no more scaling to accomodate our fantastic
growth and subsequents needs. It started getting very
frustrating. We initiated a slow and sometimes painful
process which resulted in the creation of the
committees in spring 2006, continued with the addition
of an executive director and more staff to help manage
daily operations, and the decision to organise that
The goal of last week retreat was to discuss the
foundations of our ever growing multicultural,
multilinguistic, collaboration-based, organisation. It
was also meant to clarify the organisation mission,
identify strategic goals short and medium terms,
priorities and to make decisions of certain actions.
It is actually strange to see it compared to
Wikimania. It was so different. It was a small group
used to interact everyday on irc and mailing lists.
Not 400 people, most unknown. It was to discuss the
organisation itself. We discussed, we had dialogues, a
lot of brainstorming, made decisions (which is SO
satisfactory), a lot of body contacts (for once), some
screamed, some cried, many laughed... we tried to
lower the barriers of our inhibitions to try to "get
somewhere" together. It was nothing like Wikimania.
The dialogue revealed a very very strong consensus in
favor of reorganisation, and I am happy to say that
though we could only partially explore the field of
actions, we have in hand a very significant and useful
outcome to work upon.
The board retreat was closed by a board meeting. And
as Erik announced, during that meeting, we reshuffled
people roles. Upon Jimbo's suggestion, the board
unanimously decided that I be the chair of Wikimedia
Foundation board of trustees, Michael Davis will stay
our treasurer, Erik has agreed to be the executive
secretary, Tim the vice-chair. Jimbo will assume the
title of Chairman Emeritus of the Foundation.
This is another big step. I thank Jimbo for proposing
it, as well as thank my fellow board members for their
supportive stance. It was not an easy step to make; I
am sure you will be able to realise that. But it is a
step we collectively agreed upon, because we think the
organisation has to move on. For the best. We may
fail. Perhaps. Hopefully not :-)
But please give us time, have faith and help us.
I'd like to very shortly explain what I intend to
focus on as the new chair. My primary task will be to
(re ?)-organise the board activity (meeting, agenda,
reporting, interaction with other bodies) to ensure
the board makes its *best* to fullfil its mission
according to our commun vision.
I also intend to give much attention to the
reorganisation plan (expansion of the board,
populating the advisory board, new bylaws, new
executive director by next summer, clarification of
Foundation/chapters relationships, improvement of
Not everything will be fixed before the end of my
serving term on the board (july 07) but I'll try my
Last, I wish to celebrate our biggest strength,
pointed out by most, if not all, board retreat
participants: people. More particularly, thank you to
editors, committee members, developers, chapter
members, officers, staff, for giving their time,
skills and energy, not only to create content, but
also to help create a sustainable infrastructure for
More to come...
Chair of Wikimedia Foundation board of Trustees.
<side note>"chair", not "chairperson", nor
"chairwoman" and anyone saying "chairman" will risk
being crushed by an ant</sidenote>
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
There has been talk on this list about how to spend money relicensing
copyrighted materials under a free license.
Access and true freedom of information requires more than a free license.
It requires transparent and effective indexing, physical access to
original sources, classification and other infrastructure.
I mentioned the EPA library catastrophe -- a slow breakdown of one of our
truly free library and archival institutions -- earlier this year.
An update follows. Please contact your Senators by the end of the
month to ask them to support the Boxer-Lautenberg letter.
> American Library Association Washington Office Newsline
> ALAWON Volume 15, Number 115 DATE : October 26, 2006
> Save EPA Libraries!
> CALL BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS IMMEDIATELY AND ASK THEM TO SIGN ONTO the
> Boxer- Lautenberg "Dear Colleague" letter asking the Senate Appropriations
> Committee to direct EPA to maintain access and research expertise at ALL
> of EPA's regional and headquarter libraries until the Agency solicits
> adequate public and Congressional input.
> Senators Barbara Boxer and Frank Lautenberg have drafted a letter to the
> Senate Appropriations Committee stating their concern that EPA is dismantling
> their unique library system (see below).
> As you know, the government, business and the general public depend on
> EPA's libraries to conduct research critical to protecting public health,
> enforcing environmental laws, and promoting sound economic, land-use planning
> and other decisions. Closure of these facilities will
> severely limit, and in some cases eliminate, the information resources needed
> by those investigating issues critical to environmental safety and health.
> Although EPA's FY2007 budget hasn't been passed yet, this year EPA has
> already eliminated or reduced library service covering 31 states (see
> list below below ).
> CALL BOTH OF YOUR SENATORS TODAY AND ASK THEM TO SIGN ONTO
< the Boxer-Lautenberg "Dear Colleague" letter! The letter asks the
< Appropriators to direct EPA to maintain access and research expertise
< at all of EPA's regional and headquarter libraries until the Agency
< solicits adequate public and Congressional input.
> The deadline for signing the letter is November 1st, so call today! Tell
> your Senator's Office that they can arrange to sign the letter by
> calling Grant Cope (4-7931) or Daniel Rosenberg (4-7225) and that they must
> do so before November 1st.
> Letter to Senate Appropriations Committee:
> October 26, 2006
> Honorable Thad Cochran, Chair Appropriations Committee U.S. Senate
> Honorable Conrad Burns, Chair Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on
> Interior and Related Agencies U.S. Senate Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking
> Member Appropriations Committee U.S. Senate
> Honorable Byron Dorgan, Ranking Member Appropriations Committee Subcommittee
> on Interior and Related Agencies U.S. Senate
> Dear Colleague:
> We are writing to request that you direct the Environmental Protection
> Agency (EPA) to restore and maintain public access and onsite
> library collections and services at EPA's headquarters, regional, laboratory,
> and specialized program libraries while the Agency solicits
> and considers public input on its plan to drastically cut its library budget
> and services. Government representatives, businesses and citizens use
> information in these libraries to protect public health, enforce
> environmental laws, and promote sound decision-making. We are concerned
> that EPA is already dismantling its unique library system without
> including the public or Members of Congress in the decision-making. Congress
> should not allow EPA to gut its library system, which plays a critical role
> in supporting the Agency's mission to protect the environment and public
> EPA has already eliminated or reduced library service to the public in
> seven EPA regions covering 31 states and is planning to close its
> Headquarters' library and maintain it only as a repository. (Attachment) EPA
> has also
> closed its pesticide and toxics program library, reducing access to
> unique materials needed to assess pesticides and other chemicals' potential
> health effects on children. EPA is implementing these devastating closures
> on the grounds that they expect to save $2 million.
> EPA's libraries provide far more benefits than the minor cost
> reductions resulting from their closure. A 2004 EPA report found that
> "[c] alculated conservatively, the benefit-to-cost ratio for EPA library
> services ranges between 2:1 and 5.7:1." The report noted that libraries
> EPA professional staff $7.5 million and non-EPA personnel $2.8 million, in
> 2003; and that one-third of the libraries' work gave EPA $22 million in
> The American Library Association, American Association of Law
> Libraries, and Special Library Association strongly oppose the cuts, pointing
> out that EPA has "unique collections, including an estimated
> 50,000 one-of-a-kind primary source documents that are available nowhere
> Notes provided by the American Library Association that recount a
> meeting with EPA on the library closures state that their warnings that the
> Agency should develop a new system before closing libraries "fell on deaf
> ears." Unions representing 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers, and other staff
> have similar concerns. They note that "[t]he ability of EPA to respond to
> emergencies will be reduced because important reference materials may be
> unavailable or take significant time to receive from storage or another
> A document from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
> Assurance (OECA) about the library restructuring expresses concern about the
> Agency's failure to adequately assess costs and funding needs, maintain
> critical information, and ensure data accessibility. OECA notes that the
> libraries have information important to specific regions, states and locales,
> and unique data on industrial processes and analytical methods. OECA has
> indicated that it fears that dispersal of this material without proper
> tracking and access could undercut rulemakings and the ability to
> "substantiate and support findings, determinations, and guidance."
> We are extremely troubled that EPA is rushing to eliminate or reduce
> library operations without adequately consulting Congress or the public. We
> respectfully request that you direct EPA in the FY 2007 Interior and
> Related Agencies Appropriations Bill to restore and maintain public access
> and onsite library collections and services at EPA's headquarters, regional,
> laboratory, and specialized program libraries to the status they held as
> of January 1, 2006. We also ask that you direct EPA to solicit and
> consider public and Congressional input, in an open process, prior to making
> any decision to close a library, cut services, or dramatically restructure
> the Agency's library system.
> Barbara Boxer Frank R. Lautenberg
> United States Senator United States Senator
> CC: Senator Ted Stevens Senator Arlen Specter Senator Pete Domenici Senator
> Christopher Bond Senator Mitch McConnell Senator Richard Shelby Senator Judd
> Gregg Senator Robert Bennett Senator Larry Craig Senator Kay Bailey
> Hutchinson Senator Mike DeWine Senator Sam Brownback Senator Wayne Allard
> Senator Daniel Inouye Senator Patrick Leahy Senator Tom Harkin Senator
> Barbara Mikulski Senator Harry Reid Senator Herb Kohl Senator Patty Murray
> Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Richard Durbin Senator Tim Johnson Senator
> Mary Landrieu
> Status of EPA Regional Library Closures and Reductions in Service:
> (Specialized Libraries Not Included)
> 1. Closed
< * Region 5, which served Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
< Ohio, and Wisconsin.
< * Region 6, which serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
< Oklahoma, Texas, and Iowa.
< * Region 7, which serves Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.
> 2. Closed to the Public with Reduced Hours to EPA Staff
< * Region 2 Library, which served New York, New Jersey, Puerto
< Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
< 3. Reduced Access to EPA Staff and the Public
< * Region 1, which serves Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
< New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
< * Region 9, which serves Arizona, California, Hawaii,
< Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations.
< * Region 10, which serves Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington,
< and Native Tribes.
< * EPA Headquarters
> Click here <http://www.capwiz.com/ala/home> or the logo above to:
> * Jump to ALA's Legislative Action Center * See what library
> legislation is hot * Send a letter or fax to Congress
> U.S. Capitol switchboard 202-225-3121
> ALAWON Editor: Andy Bridges
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please click here
> <http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washnews/news.htm> .
> All materials subject to copyright by the American Library Association
> may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with
> appropriate credits.
> ALA Washington Office Emily Sheketoff, Executive Director 1615 New Hampshire
> Ave NW, First Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 202.628.8410 (V) 202.628.8419 (F)
> Office of Government Relations Lynne Bradley, Director; Melanie Anderson, Don
> Essex, Erin Haggerty, and Miriam Nisbet
> Office for Information Technology Policy Rick Weingarten, Director; Carrie
> Lowe, Kathy Mitchell, Carrie Russell
> SLA-SF mailing list