Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running an affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you can't imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience. Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task wanted to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I am not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their messages.
And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community. The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task. The "we versus them" thoughts.
And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small amount of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard discussions that occur from time to time.
Romaine
2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal. This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
issue
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
privacy.
One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
like
to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
suppose)
by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much,
or
create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.
If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether
its
archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so"
and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are
not
publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using
this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers,
local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a
good
number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the
whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we
really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should
be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
generally
(there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <gregory.varnum@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hey Pine, > > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. > > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
majority
of
> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
> manage. > > -greg (User:Varnent) > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee > > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>> ). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pine >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < > maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
> place >>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
> to >>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The >>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, >>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >>> communications from affiliates. >>> >>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the > mailing >>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>>> additional spots if needed. >>> >>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Carlos >>> -- >>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua >>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." >>> Carlos M. Colina >>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | > www.wikimedia.org.ve >>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>> Twitter: @maor_x >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe