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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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_l…
>>>>> ).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pine
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
>>>> maorx(a)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_ma…
>>>>>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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
<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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>