Hello,
I have been thinking about the wikicouncil stuff lately and it seems to me there is room for another form of community representation, something like a union of editors.
WMF<->Project communication is necessary and I think it would be suited to a wikicouncil. But then there is the more general WMF<->community representation, where "community" is the self-elected group of people who are interested in "meta issues"... ie foundation-l posters at the moment.
I know the Foundation gave up formal membership however-long-ago but I don't think that would preclude them from organising, or perhaps more accurately recognising, a membership group that was legally powerless. (We don't need to be legally powerful to have power: the most powerful thing we have is the right to fork.)
Anyway my thoughts about this are not completely formed, so I just want to throw the idea out there to see what people think.
cheers, Brianna
On 10/01/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking about the wikicouncil stuff lately and it seems to me there is room for another form of community representation, something like a union of editors.
WMF<->Project communication is necessary and I think it would be suited to a wikicouncil. But then there is the more general WMF<->community representation, where "community" is the self-elected group of people who are interested in "meta issues"... ie foundation-l posters at the moment.
I know the Foundation gave up formal membership however-long-ago but I don't think that would preclude them from organising, or perhaps more accurately recognising, a membership group that was legally powerless. (We don't need to be legally powerful to have power: the most powerful thing we have is the right to fork.)
Maybe I'm a complete fool, but isn't that the point of Chapters? I understood the concept of Wikicouncil to be a combination of project-specific and geographical representatives. Already people would have two (or more!) forms of input in to the Council - would it be necessary to have even more, especially as most people interested in the Wikicouncil would be interested in the Foundation anyway?
In case I make myself look (even more) like a fool, I should explain that my ideas on Wikicouncil were formed back in '03/'04 ish. and so I may be very out of date. I sadly don't have time to read every post even to this list. :-(
Yrs,
On 1/10/08, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm a complete fool, but isn't that the point of Chapters? I understood the concept of Wikicouncil to be a combination of project-specific and geographical representatives. Already people would have two (or more!) forms of input in to the Council - would it be necessary to have even more, especially as most people interested in the Wikicouncil would be interested in the Foundation anyway?
In case I make myself look (even more) like a fool, I should explain that my ideas on Wikicouncil were formed back in '03/'04 ish. and so I may be very out of date. I sadly don't have time to read every post even to this list. :-(
There are two very different levels of Wikimedian organization. At the first, main level, editor level, we don't need to think about time: if we don't have some article or some fact or anything else, it is reasonable to suppose that we will have it in the future. (OK, this applies for every project except for Wikinews partially.)
The second level is a real time organization, which implies thinking about money, organizing real life events, communicating with outer world etc.
The second level is covered by the WMF and chapters. The first level is partially covered by chapters, but chapters are much almost in the same position as WMF: they have to think much more about real time and real life things.
So, we don't have covered the first level. And, unlike in the case of the second level, where we need functional bodies which deal with particular real events, the first level should be covered by a body which would represent all editors, programmers and other people who are participating in Wikimedia projects.
And here is the example: Try to ask the Board to implement NPOV on all Wikipedias at the articles about George Bush :) I think that they would just ignore you :) (at the best, you will get some generic email which says that they are WMF and WMF doesn't have relation with content). Try to ask that any chapter Board. In the best case (but don't expect it from "multilingual chapters" like WM CH is; or from monolingual chapters which represents only a part of the language body, like WM UK and WM AU are), they would say to you: "OK, I am not able to do that as a member of the Board of WM XX, but I'll try to help you as a Wikipedian on the XX Wikipedia. Please, consider that I don't know other languages and that en.wp is not my primary project."
On 11/01/2008, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking about the wikicouncil stuff lately and it seems to me there is room for another form of community representation, something like a union of editors.
WMF<->Project communication is necessary and I think it would be suited to a wikicouncil. But then there is the more general WMF<->community representation, where "community" is the self-elected group of people who are interested in "meta issues"... ie foundation-l posters at the moment.
I know the Foundation gave up formal membership however-long-ago but I don't think that would preclude them from organising, or perhaps more accurately recognising, a membership group that was legally powerless. (We don't need to be legally powerful to have power: the most powerful thing we have is the right to fork.)
Maybe I'm a complete fool, but isn't that the point of Chapters? I understood the concept of Wikicouncil to be a combination of project-specific and geographical representatives. Already people would have two (or more!) forms of input in to the Council - would it be necessary to have even more, especially as most people interested in the Wikicouncil would be interested in the Foundation anyway?
I don't think you're a complete fool :) but I also don't think that's the point of chapters. Chapter members would almost always have some legal power I think, within the chapter organisation, but AFAIK chapter members have no special status to WMF itself.
Besides which, rightly or wrongly it is not easy to create a chapter.
I don't know if I have the concept of a wikicouncil right either, but I imagine it as a good thing to get more project editors interested in (or at least aware of) "meta issues", foundation issues. Then what do they do after they are interested? The answer to that currently is "..."
cheers Brianna
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if I have the concept of a wikicouncil right either, but I imagine it as a good thing to get more project editors interested in (or at least aware of) "meta issues", foundation issues. Then what do they do after they are interested? The answer to that currently is "..."
You seem to imply that interest in meta issues should be followed by actual volunteer participation outside the wikis. For me I always thought the old answer to 'then what becomes of meta-interested editors?' has been that they became better managers of their local wiki. Full understanding of the "meta view" of free content helps editors write better copyright policy than if they were less informed. The same is true of any "meta issue". Being aware of the methods and goings on of other wikis helps editors make better decisions and brings in new ideas about managing their own communities. If more of the involved discussion of "meta issues" continues to be moved to private lists and communication becomes more of after-the-fact announcements, the deeper understanding on these issues will more removed from the regular editors. That understanding and the respect that follows for what happens at the meta level will removed from the regular editors. This is what I am seeing. A year ago we likely talked about the problem of meta-awareness and getting information to the editors who don't speak English. I remember a topic about how bring people into the discussions of meta-issues who may not speak English or be have the inclination to track down what list exist and where they are. Today being interested and speaking English isn't enough to secure input into such discussions.
In another thread, Mike Goodwin said WMF can't be a club anymore and the concerned feelings come from those who miss the club. I find this completely off-base. WMF is *becoming* a club now. In the past it was more like a trading center. One of those old towns on a busy cross-roads where every day was market day. People came from all-over and shared ideas, stories, and opinions. And we celebrated the diversity of the wikis and the different methods taken towards a common goal. Only recently has a club membership been required. I am not interested in joining a club. I want en.WS to be great. In the very begining, I joined this list in order to have a heads-up and maybe some input on issues that would affect the success of en.WS. Announcements about the decisions made by members of the WMF club are fine. Receiving the WMF club talking points on issues the affect en.WS is fine. But please don't pretend it will help make en.WS, or any wiki, great.
Someone who posts too much suggested the example of ru.WB may not be representative. While it is extreme one as far as actions taken, please give me the benefit of my long experience here and assume I would not pick an anomaly as an example of the underlying feelings. Seriously the relationship between the foundation and the wikis is largely untested. If push ever comes to shove, I imagine it will more often be technical limitations rather than any real feeling of a relationship or shared goals with WMF that will prevent forks.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 11/01/2008, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if I have the concept of a wikicouncil right either, but I imagine it as a good thing to get more project editors interested in (or at least aware of) "meta issues", foundation issues. Then what do they do after they are interested? The answer to that currently is "..."
You seem to imply that interest in meta issues should be followed by actual volunteer participation outside the wikis.
Hm, I didn't mean to give that impression. I am still only thinking about the online realm.
I started thinking about this when there some discussion about how the community could get rid (or, "express their disapproval" perhaps) of an elected Board member if they wanted to. There is no mechanism for it. Florence's comments on the matter were to the effect that if we (community) just hassle/harass/annoy them enough they will quit. At least that is the way I understood it. And I really, really, really dislike that idea.
I don't have a problem with any of the current board members. But there may be a situation in the future where I and others do. I want some route other than the personal one, to be able to express that. Not having any mechanism for that just seems like an invitation for potential nastiness for board members.
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
cheers Brianna
Hoi, I seem to recall that the board has the option to dismiss one of its own members. This means that when a board member under performs or is disruptive in a substantial way, there is room for action. Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if I have the concept of a wikicouncil right either, but I imagine it as a good thing to get more project editors interested in (or at least aware of) "meta issues", foundation issues. Then what do they do after they are interested? The answer to that currently is "..."
You seem to imply that interest in meta issues should be followed by actual volunteer participation outside the wikis.
Hm, I didn't mean to give that impression. I am still only thinking about the online realm.
I started thinking about this when there some discussion about how the community could get rid (or, "express their disapproval" perhaps) of an elected Board member if they wanted to. There is no mechanism for it. Florence's comments on the matter were to the effect that if we (community) just hassle/harass/annoy them enough they will quit. At least that is the way I understood it. And I really, really, really dislike that idea.
I don't have a problem with any of the current board members. But there may be a situation in the future where I and others do. I want some route other than the personal one, to be able to express that. Not having any mechanism for that just seems like an invitation for potential nastiness for board members.
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
cheers Brianna
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
Delphine
Hoi, There are several countries where it is possible to organise a referendum in order to vote an incumbent out of his office. In Venezuela the president Hugo Chavez has survived such a referendum in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum_of_2004
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 11, 2008 3:57 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
Delphine
-- ~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will get lost. Please use my wikimedia.org address.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/11/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several countries where it is possible to organise a referendum in order to vote an incumbent out of his office. In Venezuela the president Hugo Chavez has survived such a referendum in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum_of_2004
Also, correct me if I am wrong, Arnie is Gubernator of California only by the grace of such an unseemly action going sour on the incumbent...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Good ol' Gray Davis. He was Terminated....
-Dan On Jan 11, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/11/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are several countries where it is possible to organise a referendum in order to vote an incumbent out of his office. In Venezuela the president Hugo Chavez has survived such a referendum in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum_of_2004
Also, correct me if I am wrong, Arnie is Gubernator of California only by the grace of such an unseemly action going sour on the incumbent...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 11, 2008 11:57 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
In Japan, Constitution says Article 58-2 Each House shall establish its rules pertaining to meeting, proceeding and internal discipline, and may punish members for disorderly conduct. However, in order to expel a member, a majority of two-thirds or more of those members present must pass a resolution thereon.
Also same rule of expelling is settled for representatives of local meetings (both prefecture and municipal level).
In addition, head of prefecture or municipal, who are elected by vote, is recalled with one tenth of eligible voters' objections. In that case a referendum should be organized.
I think we should not be so "arrogant" to compare ourselves with a whole country ;-) Maybe we should look for examples some closer to home. Maybe with the chapters, or other associations. Because if we look for this specific aspect, community is just like a general assemblee.
I think (correct me if i am wrong) that in most associations a certain percentage of the members can call for a General Assemblee. And they can put Board elections on the agenda I think. Or maybe accept a resolution to dismiss a board member. And they can vote on this during the assemblee. It is generally not an easy procedure, but I have to admit there is generally a procedure.
However, I think this is a Board of Trustees. And I also think that we should be possible to *trust* these members that they will resign if it is clear that a vast majority of the community is against them holding that position. A Volunteer Council could of course bring in another possibility to let someone resign. If we can't trust someone that (s)he will resign if asked by a vast majority, (s)he should not be a Trustee.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/1/11, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On Jan 11, 2008 11:57 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
In Japan, Constitution says Article 58-2 Each House shall establish its rules pertaining to meeting, proceeding and internal discipline, and may punish members for disorderly conduct. However, in order to expel a member, a majority of two-thirds or more of those members present must pass a resolution thereon.
Also same rule of expelling is settled for representatives of local meetings (both prefecture and municipal level).
In addition, head of prefecture or municipal, who are elected by vote, is recalled with one tenth of eligible voters' objections. In that case a referendum should be organized.
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 11, 2008 8:32 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should not be so "arrogant" to compare ourselves with a whole country ;-) Maybe we should look for examples some closer to home. Maybe with the chapters, or other associations. Because if we look for this specific aspect, community is just like a general assemblee.
I think (correct me if i am wrong) that in most associations a certain percentage of the members can call for a General Assemblee. And they can put Board elections on the agenda I think. Or maybe accept a resolution to dismiss a board member. And they can vote on this during the assemblee. It is generally not an easy procedure, but I have to admit there is generally a procedure.
However, I think this is a Board of Trustees. And I also think that we should be possible to *trust* these members that they will resign if it is clear that a vast majority of the community is against them holding that position. A Volunteer Council could of course bring in another possibility to let someone resign. If we can't trust someone that (s)he will resign if asked by a vast majority, (s)he should not be a Trustee.
Membership associations (and things like company stockholders) generally
have powers to force issues like these, but as you may remember the WMF has no membership. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any formal process currently existing for the wiki communities to force the WMF to consider or act on anything. Which pretty much just leaves whining about things.
That's not to say that the WMF couldn't adopt such a process.
Speaking of which, is there an explanation somewhere of why the WMF isn't a membership organization? Given that community participation is at the core of nearly everything WMF accomplishes, it strikes me as odd that "The Foundation does not have members" (Bylaws, Article III).
-Robert Rohde
On 12/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Membership associations (and things like company stockholders) generally
have powers to force issues like these, but as you may remember the WMF has no membership. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any formal process currently existing for the wiki communities to force the WMF to consider or act on anything. Which pretty much just leaves whining about things.
That's not to say that the WMF couldn't adopt such a process.
Right, this is my line of reasoning too. However, you can't say something will happen when X% of the member/community do something unless you know how big the membership/community is. And you don't know how big the membership/community is until you define what it is to be a member (of the comunity) or the membership requirements. These are still unresolved problems.
Some ideas. 1) Memberhip by paying membership fees. If this happens I think it should come with legal power, ie membership of WMF. So it would mean changing the bylaws. However I think there would be majoy concerns about equity, in terms of is the fee reasonable in XYZ countries and does Paypal even accept those countries' currencies. [I recently looked at the membership of a couple of "digital rights" type charities and while non-US citizens can join they really do seem to be mainly concerned with Americans. I think WMF could not reasonably adopt such a stance, so this is a problem.]
2) Membership by wiki requirement (single project 200 edits, > 6 months, not banned) + self-appointment, ie put your name on a list somewhere.Can only sign up for membership for six months at a time, due to the natural easy-come-easy-go nature of the community. This limits "dead wood" membership, ie people who signed up ages ago but in reality are no longer present.
Effeietsanders said "I think we should not be so "arrogant" to compare ourselves with a whole country ;-)" I don't think it is arrogance but we need to recognise the limitations of that comparison. National citizenship generally doesn't have a participation-in-society requirement. If I leave Australia and live in every country of the world for a year each, I will still be an Australian citizen even if I hate Australia, have no idea who the government is or even where it is on the map. It's not trivial to pick up citizenship of another country, generally.
However, it is really easy to become a member of the Wikimedia community. Just pick a project you like and do peaceful work for a few months. There are no money or legal requirements. Time is the only thing every person on the planet is given equally, 24 hours every day. :) So community membership is generally thought of as being related to activity, I think. I don't think people want a definition where once you've done enough editing, BOOM - you're a member for life. No, you're a member as long as keep having some appropriate level of activity. Easy come, easy go.
cheers Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Membership associations (and things like company stockholders) generally
have powers to force issues like these, but as you may remember the WMF has no membership. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any formal process currently existing for the wiki communities to force the WMF to consider or act on anything. Which pretty much just leaves whining about things.
That's not to say that the WMF couldn't adopt such a process.
Right, this is my line of reasoning too. However, you can't say something will happen when X% of the member/community do something unless you know how big the membership/community is. And you don't know how big the membership/community is until you define what it is to be a member (of the comunity) or the membership requirements. These are still unresolved problems.
Some ideas.
Please Brianna...
Do us the favor to not imagine we have NEVER given any thoughts to the matter. I remember spending hours on this in the past. See all the pages here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership
And explanations for change of bylaws http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/025543.html
Ant
- Memberhip by paying membership fees. If this happens I think it
should come with legal power, ie membership of WMF. So it would mean changing the bylaws. However I think there would be majoy concerns about equity, in terms of is the fee reasonable in XYZ countries and does Paypal even accept those countries' currencies. [I recently looked at the membership of a couple of "digital rights" type charities and while non-US citizens can join they really do seem to be mainly concerned with Americans. I think WMF could not reasonably adopt such a stance, so this is a problem.]
- Membership by wiki requirement (single project 200 edits, > 6
months, not banned) + self-appointment, ie put your name on a list somewhere.Can only sign up for membership for six months at a time, due to the natural easy-come-easy-go nature of the community. This limits "dead wood" membership, ie people who signed up ages ago but in reality are no longer present.
Effeietsanders said "I think we should not be so "arrogant" to compare ourselves with a whole country ;-)" I don't think it is arrogance but we need to recognise the limitations of that comparison. National citizenship generally doesn't have a participation-in-society requirement. If I leave Australia and live in every country of the world for a year each, I will still be an Australian citizen even if I hate Australia, have no idea who the government is or even where it is on the map. It's not trivial to pick up citizenship of another country, generally.
However, it is really easy to become a member of the Wikimedia community. Just pick a project you like and do peaceful work for a few months. There are no money or legal requirements. Time is the only thing every person on the planet is given equally, 24 hours every day. :) So community membership is generally thought of as being related to activity, I think. I don't think people want a definition where once you've done enough editing, BOOM - you're a member for life. No, you're a member as long as keep having some appropriate level of activity. Easy come, easy go.
cheers Brianna
On 12/01/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Please Brianna...
Do us the favor to not imagine we have NEVER given any thoughts to the matter. I remember spending hours on this in the past. See all the pages here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership
And explanations for change of bylaws http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/025543.html
Ant
I know it has been discussed many times before. But were there ever any conclusions reached? And if not isn't it still an open discussion?
Thankyou for the link to Erik's post.
In it he says
"4) The notion of community elections is described in the bylaws, as is a commitment that a majority of the Board will come from the community through appointment or election (the scope of "community" is to be defined by the Board)."
I think I missed that definition of "community" that was defined by the Board.
If the Board did define the scope of "community" then I apologise for being redundant.
regards Brianna
On Jan 11, 2008 6:57 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
Recall elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election) are a feature of some democratic systems. Currently 18 of the 50 US states have recall provisions for statewide elected officials.
Generally, a recall initiative is triggered by citizens presenting petitions for removal of an elected officials with some necessary number of signatures. California, for example, requires a number of signatures equal to at least 12% of the total votes in the last general election. After a petition is certified, a question on removal requiring majority approval would be added to the next election or in some cases a special election is held.
-Robert A. Rohde
How about a vote of no-confidence? Most parliamentary systems have such a process. Democratic systems generally have impeachment, or a referendum, to remove a leader.
-Dan On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:57 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 3:33 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it is strange that the community can put people to the Board but can't take them back. Maybe the argument is that you simply don't vote for them at the next election.
I am curious where "in the real world" there is this possibility. In the countries I live(d) in, I can't think of any process allowing to "vote someone out" once you've voted them in.
Any examples?
Delphine
-- ~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will get lost. Please use my wikimedia.org address.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org