the proliferation of lists is also an issue as someone who's been on a chapter committee for 2 years and going into my third finding the right lists to join is a problem.
When you rely solely on electronic means of contact you never get the knowledge of the where discussions are taking place and again the private lists ensure thats perpetuated. I understand the reasonings for private when groups are talking, that makes it critical in maintaining the currency of lists. The list should be without restriction to all members of a committee not limited to two or three as that tends to contribute to a rapid knowledge decay, missed opportunities and facilitation of power plays all of which ultimately make poor decisions easier to incur and harder to fix
On 21 October 2015 at 11:13, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is "private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could be used to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and problems must not be hidden from the "public".
This privates clubs are not coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement.
On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi All,
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If
there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera. If affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare
of
publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't
force
them into some form of radical transparency.
Cheers, Craig
On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
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
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
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 _______________________________________________ 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