On 29 January 2017 at 15:01, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: No. This is very much a case where the foundation sits and waits. -- geni

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm alright with the WMF taking a position on issues when they're likely to have a serious impact on the core mission of Wikimedia. I fail to see how this is one of those things. The WMF is not a political advocacy organization. Todd

I could see the Foundation making reasonable preparations against what may be inevitable - backing up servers, off-site contingencies, etc - but I do not see this as an issue where the WMF should be a leader in driving influence. The issue of a general strike is a generalized protest against.... <something/someone/some set of policies>. I see this as somewhat different from the SOPA/PIPA issue in that there is no clear and delineated threat to the WMF's existence - there is certainly a danger in the form of troubling policy, and I personally am gravely concerned that such a threat to the WMF's existence may materialize, but I don't yet see an immediate single incident/issue/law/case that the WMF should take a leadership role in advocacy against. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, however. On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Todd Allen &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Philippe Beaudette philippe(a)beaudette.me 415-716-1795

Hoi, Our movement is impacted by the new ukaze that prevents many of our staff going home for a holiday or see their family and it prevents many members of our movement to visit the office of the WMF. So it does have a serious and negative impact on our efforts. When there is a national strike, it will affect staff to come to the office. So going to work / not working are two distinct things here. Given that we are negatively affected, there is no problem recognising this. When you then consider that a negative perspective on muslims / Islam is grounded in a lack of knowledge, we could recognise this and when we do see this in a similar light as we see the gender gap. It is where we are lacking and it is why people can easily take an advantage. So strike maybe not. Sympathise and do something that helps our cause and is not beneficial to those misrepresenting facts.. ABSOLUTELY. Thanks, GerardM On 29 January 2017 at 18:16, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, Sorry James that is not in scope. Thanks, GerardM On 29 January 2017 at 19:11, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 29 January 2017 at 17:58, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Do does the WMF actually have any staff from the countries affected? -- geni

I just spoke with Gerard Meijssen, who gave me permission to quote him saying that both censorship of the internet and travel of Foundation employees are within the scope of the issues impacting the Mission, and that he has posted here with more information: http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/01/wikimedia-we-shall-overcome.html

Hoi, What I also said was that it is not good to expand the subject (in his own thread) and thereby making it too unwieldy. Yes, I am appalled by the current irrational behaviour and I did blog about this. But getting Mr Bannon into this as well is too much. It is a bad argument in this thread and I said as much. Thanks, GerardM On 29 January 2017 at 20:03, James Salsman &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: