those to address the underlying issues? The concern is political stability and the feasibility to react when a faster more immediate shift is needed than can be achieve through a lobbying for change pace. Both should be the approach a plan to exit partially or entirely from the US is the immediate need as thats seen as the most prudent method for protection of the WMF and its staff. There has also been an under lying concern about the current location and potential for issues derived from closeness to other Big net corporations, remember there where issues 12 months ago about a board of trustee member who stood down. Moving is something people have thought in more detail about, the travel ban was so fast and impact immediate it highlighted dramatically the uncertainity ahead for US based activities. Had it occurred during a conference the impact could have potentially been more significant, if the WMF wants to attract the best people to work locally this hurts and plans to protect those people(and their families) are needed. We also need to acknowledge that travel bans may cause additional operational costs to the WMF either in the need to shift face to face meetings, and or to support employees caught up in unexpected changes. On 1 February 2017 at 07:11, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com