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