It was a saying to illustrate that the foundation does not have obey the law in every country. I highlighted the relevant portion.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:15:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A train without destination?
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Sorry, Charlie. According to the Charter, trustees are indemnified, no matter what the law in Zimbabwe is.
>
I can't see what indemnification has to do with anything, and even less
how Zimbabwean law gets meaningfully into the picture. Indemnification
often does not apply in cases of willful wrong or gross negligence. When
we put someone on a Board we expect them to know that. Nevertheless my
post was about the need to delegate power, not about horror stories for
what can go wrong if they don't do everything themselves.
Ec
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ray Saintonge
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>> Having a two elected bodies making binding decisions sounds like a
>>> very bad idea to me.
>>>
>> You mean the council and the board? Working out which body will have
>> power over which decisions would be essential. There would also need
>> to be a strict rule about which body takes precedence in the case of
>> disputed jurisdiction (almost certainly, the board). As long as their
>> jurisdictions are clearly separated, I don't see any problem with them
>> both making binding decisions.
>>
> I couldn't agree more, but there will always be grey areas, or other
> areas that were never considered when the line was drawn. In that it
> will be most important to maintain a friendly working relation between
> Board and Council to avoid having these issues become turf wars. The
> Provisional Council should be able to identify the most obvious areas of
> Council jurisdiction, and they alone will give the Council more than
> enough work for the foreseeable future.
>
> A Board of seven people cannot decide everything, no matter how
> democratic or willing it may be to do so. If they all worked at it 24/7
> it would still be impossible. It must delegate all but the most
> important decisions. If it had to deal directly with only a few of the
> cases that come before Arbcom it would immediately become paralyzed and
> unable to do anything else. If it establishes staff to do tasks such as
> hiring or paying bills it must allow that staff to operate within
> specified parameters, and interference should be limited to exceptional
> circumstances. The legal right to interfere always remains, because the
> Board has the ultimate legal responsibility in relation to the outside
> world. If the Executive Director fires someone, and the person sues for
> wrongful dismissal it is the organization as a whole through the Board
> that must pay the costs. If the staff fails to make and submit
> appropriate tax deductions in some jurisdictions Board members can be
> held personally liable. Yet staff must be allowed to do its job without
> being micromanaged by the Board.
>
> There are similar models that can be applied in relation to a Council
> with decision making powers. The Board need to retain limited oversight
> powers, especially as regards to real legal threats. Real legal threats
> do not include speculative musings of unaffected parties, but it must be
> prepared to take protective measures when it receives notice from
> someone that his own rights have been violated. Failing to see the more
> egregious illegalities may seem to be terribly boneheaded, but anything
> else implies control by the WMF as an ISP. If the WMF can do that, so
> can your local ISP or your local telephone service provider.
>
> The WMF has no members. It was incorporated that way. The Board could
> sell it, but the implications of that kind of move are absolutely
> mind-boggling. It can be argued that the Board has no legal authority
> whatsoever over the one or the several communities, but equally well it
> can be argued that the one or the several communities have no legal
> authority over the WMF. It's bad enough if we are dealing only with US
> law, but things can get much stranger when the international aspects are
> thrown in.
>
> I suppose that I could argue that the Council doesn't need Board
> authority at all to get started, and that it would be enough for
> interested persons to just set one up, but, legally permissible as that
> may be, I seriously doubt that it would be a constructive strategy. So
> whatever structure the Council will have it must be able to work
> together with the Board, and not in confrontation with it. Those
> individuals who would become members of the Council must be capable of
> coming to terms with the inherently contradictory nature of these
> structures.
>
> Ec
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Well unfortunately the only way to make every man, woman and extraterrestrial who serves on the Board accountable to the Community is by elections.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:43:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
Hoi,
When you have honest people who play an open hand of cards in a board /
committee, you will make people accountable in this board / committee. When
the board is made of cliques, you will have power games and consequently
accountability is out of the window because it is the game, the winning that
is at stake.
When you think that accountability is served by being voted in or out every
other year, you will not have a situation where the board members are
accountable for their own action or inaction. When they are accountable
within the board itself and when you make it possible for a board /
committee to expel board member exactly because they are accountable within
this organisational entity, only then will you have true accountability.
Really, accountability is not just we can vote you out in two years ...
Thanks,
GerardN
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I like the advisory board as a place for experts, but I see no problem
> with experts as trustees provided they are accountable.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:27:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
>
> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have a seperate body in place, such as the VC, there might be no
> need
> > for such requirement, as there would be another way to control the
> > foundtaion more directly. We should not put these requirements in just
> to
> > put them in, but only if they are useful. Therefore, I think it is best
> to
> > await the developments on the VC side. There seems to be no hurry with
> > regards to the number of volunteers anyway?
>
> Community control over WMF bodies is necessary whatever is number of
> those bodies. If someone made bad decisions, they should be
> responsible at the next elections. This is an extremely simple
> principle of representative democracy. However, this is not
> implemented coherently in the bylaws.
>
> And this may be implemented in (at least) three ways: (1) To give the
> right to the elected members to appoint and remove expert members, (2)
> to limit powers and proportion of the appointed members or (3) to move
> all expertize out of the Board, to payed professionals (I prefer this
> option).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Well unfortunately the only way to make every man, woman and extraterrestrial who serves on the Board accountable to the Community is by elections.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:43:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
Hoi,
When you have honest people who play an open hand of cards in a board /
committee, you will make people accountable in this board / committee. When
the board is made of cliques, you will have power games and consequently
accountability is out of the window because it is the game, the winning that
is at stake.
When you think that accountability is served by being voted in or out every
other year, you will not have a situation where the board members are
accountable for their own action or inaction. When they are accountable
within the board itself and when you make it possible for a board /
committee to expel board member exactly because they are accountable within
this organisational entity, only then will you have true accountability.
Really, accountability is not just we can vote you out in two years ...
Thanks,
GerardN
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I like the advisory board as a place for experts, but I see no problem
> with experts as trustees provided they are accountable.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:27:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
>
> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have a seperate body in place, such as the VC, there might be no
> need
> > for such requirement, as there would be another way to control the
> > foundtaion more directly. We should not put these requirements in just
> to
> > put them in, but only if they are useful. Therefore, I think it is best
> to
> > await the developments on the VC side. There seems to be no hurry with
> > regards to the number of volunteers anyway?
>
> Community control over WMF bodies is necessary whatever is number of
> those bodies. If someone made bad decisions, they should be
> responsible at the next elections. This is an extremely simple
> principle of representative democracy. However, this is not
> implemented coherently in the bylaws.
>
> And this may be implemented in (at least) three ways: (1) To give the
> right to the elected members to appoint and remove expert members, (2)
> to limit powers and proportion of the appointed members or (3) to move
> all expertize out of the Board, to payed professionals (I prefer this
> option).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Andrew Whitworth writes:
On Mar 11, 2008, at 11:47 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
> I think that the most direct way to measure the communities feelings
> on this issue would be to include referenda about it in the next board
> election. Whoever handles the elections could easily add a handful of
> optional questions to the end of the ballot, about this issue and many
> others on which community opinion data would be valuable.
As someone who was a statistician in another life, I feel compelled to
point out that even this wouldn't necessarily elicit a representative
sample of the community's opinion -- it samples, at best, only that
subset of the community who (a) votes in elections, and (b) would be
willing to offer an opinion in the course of voting in an election.
There are methods of providing more representative sampling, but they
typically require a significant amount of upfront poll design.
What makes this more complicated, though, is the question of whether
Wikimedia should gear its strategies in response to what the
"community" (however defined) wants, as distinct from what the world
needs. We articulate our primary mission in terms of the world rather
than in terms of the community. It is not inconceivable that what the
world wants or needs is not entirely the same as what the community
wants. If so, then what?
My own view, as I think is we should serve the world as a whole, of
which the community is an outspoken, well-informed, but still
relatively small subset. (Obviously, I also believe the barriers to
entry to the community should be lowered as much as possible,
consistent with this principle -- in this, I point to the great work
of Andrew Lih in outlining the increasing barriers to entry, due to
expansion of rule sets, for Wikipedians.)
--Mike
Dear Effe,
With all respect for your initiative, I am afraid that the main flaw of your
proposal is that you want to set a train on a track without destination. A
preliminary council that is allowed to define its powers itself will risk
not to find many supporters in the community. What is the need of an
advisory council if the Board does not has to accept the "advice"?
A commission that will report about the needs of the organisation and make a
sound proposal about the Wikimedia structure as a whole, that would be OK.
This proposal must respect that there already are the Board and the
chapters, consider the years old question of WMF membership, and find a
suitable general concept.
It seems to me that the most likely organ to install such a commission is
the Board.
Ziko
--
Ziko van Dijk
Roomberg 30
NL-7064 BN Silvolde
I like the advisory board as a place for experts, but I see no problem with experts as trustees provided they are accountable.
----- Original Message ----
From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:27:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have a seperate body in place, such as the VC, there might be no need
> for such requirement, as there would be another way to control the
> foundtaion more directly. We should not put these requirements in just to
> put them in, but only if they are useful. Therefore, I think it is best to
> await the developments on the VC side. There seems to be no hurry with
> regards to the number of volunteers anyway?
Community control over WMF bodies is necessary whatever is number of
those bodies. If someone made bad decisions, they should be
responsible at the next elections. This is an extremely simple
principle of representative democracy. However, this is not
implemented coherently in the bylaws.
And this may be implemented in (at least) three ways: (1) To give the
right to the elected members to appoint and remove expert members, (2)
to limit powers and proportion of the appointed members or (3) to move
all expertize out of the Board, to payed professionals (I prefer this
option).
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I agree mostly with Brian except the by elections. If we were to call a emergency straw poll... I might be in favor of it.
----- Original Message ----
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:15:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
That was certainly not what I'd intended nor was it, I believe, how Geoffrey
was interpreting it.
Let's say someone has a family crisis that appears to be ongoing and
time-consuming, and thus quits the board. The existing board can appoint
someone. No problem, they don't have to - it might be pointless if elections
are only a month or two away. This was why I said "may appoint" and
anticipated this being the normal action. The decision is left to the board.
It may also be influenced by the following point, in that an appointment may
unbalance the board.
Where Geoffrey and I disagree slightly is that I believe the majority of the
board, i.e. > 50% must always be elected members. This is to say, when the
balance of power shifts from elected to appointed, then a special election
should be called to give people who have been appointed to replace departed
elected members a chance to obtain community backing, and thus restore an
elected majority. If you go with a 40/60 appointed/elected situation and a
board of 10 people, you'd need to lose two or three elected members between
sets of elections before you had to hold a special election. This seems a
highly unlikely scenario, but I believe it is one to have a solution to
written into the bylaws.
Like Geoffrey, I am cognizant of the fact that the board will not be able to
function well without a number of unelected positions; the treasurer being
the prime example.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 17 March 2008 18:37
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
> This provision is meant to close the loophole of appointments to
resignations.
Are you suggesting all resignations of elected members lead to
immediate by-elections, or am I misunderstanding you? Do you really
think it's necessary to have by-elections when we have regular
elections every year? Elections take a lot of organisation and time
and having one every time there's an empty seat seems inefficient. It
also means the board could fall below minimum of 7 members required by
Article IV Section 2 and it would take a significant amount of time (a
month at a bare minimum, I would think) before that could be
corrected, I don't think that's a good thing.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Which proposal are you calling a failure?
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:59:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
Hoi,
I do not want to have our board or any body be dumbed down. Please, when we
are to chose people to represent us let them people who understand what the
f***k they are talking about and who understand what the impact is of what
is proposed and what is considered. The last thing we want is to have a
group of people, properly democratically elected, that do not have a clue
what it is that they are doing.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not have members. Making the WMF a member
based organisation is NOT what is being proposed. What is proposed is giving
the community a way in which it can make for a more coherent way of running
the projects. When this means that there is a need for involvement of the
WMF organisation, it will be something that needs to be discussed with the
organisation and possibly with the board. When you make this proposal a
power play, you will not achieve what you hope to achieve.
In my opinion, we have an organisation that is working its arse off to make
sure that we have the budget so that they stay in a job and we will get the
things done as proposed in the budget. The board is responsible for the
oversight of the organisation and it has the power to enforce certain
requirements on the projects.
In the mean time there is nobody who really cares about the existing
projects who will consider request like the one for the closure of the Tatar
Wikipedia. The one thing where we really suck is in the management of our
projects. When this proposal is only seen in terms of power, I consider this
proposal a complete failure. When we want to give our projects, our
communities more involvement then the first thing it has to do is get our
act together and make sure that our projects, communities are sane and the
universal requirements are implemented on all our projects for all the
languages. You do not do this by telling the organisation, the board how to
do *their *job.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have a seperate body in place, such as the VC, there might be no
> need
> > for such requirement, as there would be another way to control the
> > foundtaion more directly. We should not put these requirements in just
> to
> > put them in, but only if they are useful. Therefore, I think it is best
> to
> > await the developments on the VC side. There seems to be no hurry with
> > regards to the number of volunteers anyway?
>
> Community control over WMF bodies is necessary whatever is number of
> those bodies. If someone made bad decisions, they should be
> responsible at the next elections. This is an extremely simple
> principle of representative democracy. However, this is not
> implemented coherently in the bylaws.
>
> And this may be implemented in (at least) three ways: (1) To give the
> right to the elected members to appoint and remove expert members, (2)
> to limit powers and proportion of the appointed members or (3) to move
> all expertize out of the Board, to payed professionals (I prefer this
> option).
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
No I didn't. I meant that I foresaw that if enacted and there were a sudden die off of members, technically the Board could end up being in violation.
----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:36:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
> This provision is meant to close the loophole of appointments to resignations.
Are you suggesting all resignations of elected members lead to
immediate by-elections, or am I misunderstanding you? Do you really
think it's necessary to have by-elections when we have regular
elections every year? Elections take a lot of organisation and time
and having one every time there's an empty seat seems inefficient. It
also means the board could fall below minimum of 7 members required by
Article IV Section 2 and it would take a significant amount of time (a
month at a bare minimum, I would think) before that could be
corrected, I don't think that's a good thing.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
My responses in blue
----- Original Message ----
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:40:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
There are a few issues with this.
1) The number of appointed - or as I strongly prefer - *unelected*
board members *should* be kept below 1/3rd. (or possibly 2/5ths - there are
valid reasons to invite experts who would not be drawn from a pool of
candidates who would stand for election - hence my consideration of a 40/60
split).
The 30/70 split I referenced was only a starting point, just to throw a number out. I have no objection to changing it to 35/65, or 40/60
2) A new board member *may* be appointed to replace a departing elected
member, but only if their term is restricted to the period between
appointment and the next scheduled elections. This *should* be the normal
course of action.
This provision is meant to close the loophole of appointments to resignations.
3) A new board member (or members) *must* be elected where the balance
of elected/unelected candidates is significantly impacted by the departure
of a board member. I.e. if unelected members become the majority due to
vacant seats, the vacant seats *must* be filled via a special election.
I almost added this provision, but I think that this is not really a issue because of the above provision
4) Preference for those appointed to normally elected seats *should* be
given to candidates who are prepared to stand for a confirmatory election at
the appropriate time as opposed to those who would serve a short term.
I agree to the addition of this provision.
Note the *highlighted* terms. I have used the meaning explained in Internet
RFCs, which generally describe how a piece of software that implements a
protocol is expected behave.
* may - this is optional.
* must - this is mandatory.
* should - this is very strongly recommended but not mandatory.
Please note that I meant this to be something to initiate discussion. I will be posting this to Meta sometime today. Feel to change the wording or modify it as consensus on text becomes apparent.
Geoff Plourde
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 17 March 2008 15:10
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
> 4th thoughts: Another technical question remains open with what is to
happen
> between the irregular vacancy of an elected member's seat and a
> corresponding interim appointment when during that period the portion of
> appointed members might exceed 1/3.
That can be fixed by rewording it to something along the lines of:
"The Board shall not appoint a new board member if it would bring the
total number of appointed board members to more than 1/3 of the total
membership of the board."
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs