Hi all,
We currently have this public list for Wikimedia Foundation matters, as well as a private list called "internal-l" which in practice is in large part used for WMF/chapters discussions, because chapter board members are added to it by default. The latter is often used for discussions that impact community members, but neither the discussions nor the results are always a matter of public record.
Unfortunately, the name foundation-l is also one which signals exclusion; it pre-dates the very complex and large network of organizations and individuals that we are today.
Others have made this suggestion before me, and I like it, so I've tried to put it into a proposal: Let's have a public list that's clearly named and scoped to be relevant to all Wikimedia matters. We're too big and too complicated to fit comfortably under the "Foundation" umbrella any longer.
That new list wouldn't be intended to replace foundation-l (which would continue to be used for matters strictly related to the Wikimedia Foundation) or to internal-l (which may have some legitimate uses, although I personally find it unnecessary and unsubscribed from it).
The full proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l_proposal
I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments here or on-wiki.
All best, Erik
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We currently have this public list for Wikimedia Foundation matters, as well as a private list called "internal-l" which in practice is in large part used for WMF/chapters discussions, because chapter board members are added to it by default.
I thought internal-l was used because people find foundation-l unpleasant, or because they want their discussions to be semi-private.
This proposal seems fine to me, but I'm not sure it will address the issue you seem to be targeting (that discussions aren't held publicly).
În data de 1 martie 2012, 11:30, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com a scris:
This proposal seems fine to me, but I'm not sure it will address the issue you seem to be targeting (that discussions aren't held publicly).
I'll go further and say that further splitting the lists will lead to more cross-posting and questions like "where has this been discussed?" Also, where does "foundation" stops and "wikimedia" begins?
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, but there is really no need for yet another list.
Strainu
On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Adding a new list would be largely redundant.
- d.
2012/3/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Adding a new list would be largely redundant.
Another +1.
There just aren't so many Foundation matters to discuss on a public list. Anything worth discussing about the Foundation can go to Wikimedia-l. And "Wikimedia-l" would be a far better name for "Foundation-l".
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
On Mar 1, 2012 12:12 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2012/3/1 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Adding a new list would be largely redundant.
Another +1.
+1
rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
"Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Another +1.
+1
That sounds reasonable. Most things discussed on this list are not specially relevant to the Foundation.
I do think many discussions can be moved from internal-l to this list; and on occasion people have suggested that foundation-l is a less suitable place for an otherwise public discussion simply because the name seems exclusive to the WMF.
Sam.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds reasonable. Most things discussed on this list are not specially relevant to the Foundation.
OK. Any strong objections to changing the list name and scope (the latter being the description at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ) to be all-encompassing for Wikimedia-wide issues?
The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list archives pre-move would be accessible via a different URL, which could be prominently advertised in the list description.
I do think many discussions can be moved from internal-l to this list; and on occasion people have suggested that foundation-l is a less suitable place for an otherwise public discussion simply because the name seems exclusive to the WMF.
Agreed -- creating a forum that feels welcoming to everyone, regardless of their specific affiliations, is one of my strongest motivations here.
Erik
On 1 March 2012 16:30, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list archives pre-move would be accessible via a different URL, which could be prominently advertised in the list description.
That answers my one concern, which is preserving old pipermail URLs.
Yep, just move this list en masse. Good idea.
- d.
OK. Any strong objections to changing the list name and scope (the latter being the description at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ) to be all-encompassing for Wikimedia-wide issues?
The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list archives pre-move would be accessible via a different URL, which could be prominently advertised in the list description.
I assume we also keep the current moderators and the list of users put on moderation.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds reasonable. Most things discussed on this list are not specially relevant to the Foundation.
OK. Any strong objections to changing the list name and scope (the latter being the description at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ) to be all-encompassing for Wikimedia-wide issues?
The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list archives pre-move would be accessible via a different URL, which could be prominently advertised in the list description.
I do think many discussions can be moved from internal-l to this list; and on occasion people have suggested that foundation-l is a less suitable place for an otherwise public discussion simply because the name seems exclusive to the WMF.
Agreed -- creating a forum that feels welcoming to everyone, regardless of their specific affiliations, is one of my strongest motivations here.
Erik
Yes, a rename to wikimedia-l certainly seems like a practical and focusing idea.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
We currently have this public list for Wikimedia Foundation matters, as well as a private list called "internal-l" which in practice is in large part used for WMF/chapters discussions, because chapter board members are added to it by default. The latter is often used for discussions that impact community members, but neither the discussions nor the results are always a matter of public record.
I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in internal.
The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know.
Ilario
On Mar 1, 2012 10:55 AM, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in
internal.
The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know.
It was five per chapter, but that limit was removed a while back.
Just to clarify, who else has access to internal, as a rule? Trusted volunteers, chapter staff/officers, and the majority of WMF staff and contractors?
Richard
On 01/03/2012 11:07, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On Mar 1, 2012 10:55 AM, "Ilario Valdelli"valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in
internal.
The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know.
It was five per chapter, but that limit was removed a while back. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0991
On 1 March 2012 09:14, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
That new list wouldn't be intended to replace foundation-l (which would continue to be used for matters strictly related to the Wikimedia Foundation) or to internal-l (which may have some legitimate uses, although I personally find it unnecessary and unsubscribed from it).
The full proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l_proposal
I think there's another way we could slice the cake:
(a) a mailing list for discussing Foundation, chapter and management stuff, basically something like a replacement for Foundation-L but broadened to include chapters and other "movement" stuff. Maybe just rename Foundation-L to "movement-l", and perhaps encourage people to take stuff from internal and use movement.
(b) a more practical discussion related to content issues, cross-wiki issues and so on. Perhaps we could call this "projects-l".
I personally am interested in more cross-wiki coordination on positive stuff: if we're working with GLAMs and other partners, and doing educational outreach, we should be trying to find opportunities to positively engage with the different projects, rather than splitting them off into their own little ghettos. There's WikiEN-L and there's Commons-L and Wikisource-L and so on, but it'd be nice if there was some kind of meeting place where the focus is the people who sit at their computers and press "edit" rather than Foundation/Chapter politics, which is important but not necessarily interesting or that relevant to a lot of Wikimedians.
I think a lot of people would be greatly interested in positive, productive discussion about furthering the goals of the projects, and a fair few of those people probably are not quite so interested in getting into long and protracted arguments about chapter fundraising and movement roles and all that jazz.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
The full proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l_proposal
I think there's another way we could slice the cake:
(a) a mailing list for discussing Foundation, chapter and management ... Maybe just rename Foundation-L to "movement-l", and perhaps encourage people to take stuff from internal and use movement.
This could include other issues related to the movement: publicity, outreach to new communities, ambassador programs, related research. Inclusive of what is discussed on internal, but not just governance topics.
(b) a more practical discussion related to content issues, cross-wiki issues and so on. Perhaps we could call this "projects-l".
In the venerable tradition of intwiki-l and (early on) wikipedia-l... We haven't really had such a list for a long time, though f-l has been used as a substitute.
I associate wikimedia (and being a wikimedian) with the projects, so I would be inclined to call the latter list "wikimedia-l". Anyone who identifies with the projects should be interested in discussions that take place there. "movement-l" seems like a fine name for the first list.
Whatever they are called, I agree that these two topics and audiences are easy to separate; most long threads would clearly fall into one or the other.
Sam.
movement-l is better!
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
I appreciate that Erik unsubscribed from internal-l. I think more people should do the same thing, on the principle that discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and projects should occur in public. Herding debate into an exclusive clique is antithetical to the ethic of the Wikimedia movement.
If the lists have a different tenor such that some people prefer internal-l over foundation-l, then the solution is more active moderation of this list. Foundation-l moderation has been absentee for sometime - I don't even recall the last time a list moderator participated in a discussion, let alone took a moderator action.
Just because the list moderators don't publicly come down like a ton of bricks on every conversation that gets lively does not mean that we are absentee. Speaking for myself only, I'll conceed that I have intervened little in recent times, but that has because I have felt little need to do so. In general, I suspect that the level of moderation on this list is too hands-off for some, about right for others, and draconian for a few.
Alex
2012/3/5 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
I appreciate that Erik unsubscribed from internal-l. I think more people should do the same thing, on the principle that discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and projects should occur in public. Herding debate into an exclusive clique is antithetical to the ethic of the Wikimedia movement.
If the lists have a different tenor such that some people prefer internal-l over foundation-l, then the solution is more active moderation of this list. Foundation-l moderation has been absentee for sometime - I don't even recall the last time a list moderator participated in a discussion, let alone took a moderator action. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
Picking this up again .. I'll go ahead and make this change on Saturday 4/7, unless there are strong objections. Moving this list to wikimedia-l seems like the least disruptive change for now, acknowledging that its scope has long expanded beyond WMF matters.
This is the only change -- all other list parameters would stay the same, so as to not surprise and annoy people by rolling up unrelated changes.
In future we may - a) find that this is perfectly sufficient and leave it at that, b) create "movement-l" to discuss the wonderful bureaucracy that we're busily creating in more dedicated and extensive depth, c) create any other divisions that make sense, or not. :-)
All best, Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used.
Picking this up again .. I'll go ahead and make this change on Saturday 4/7, unless there are strong objections. Moving this list to wikimedia-l seems like the least disruptive change for now, acknowledging that its scope has long expanded beyond WMF matters.
What's involved to implement this? I don't think mailman has a move tab. ;-)
It's a matter of creating a separate list and importing the members from the current list (foundation-l), right? Will foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org continue to function after April 7 (as a redirect/alias) or will only the new address? Will the archives be permanently split? Are there any other consequences of a list rename?
I'll note (again) that in your 2004 proposal to create "foundation-l" you specifically cited the desire to "avoid 'Wikipedia/Wikimedia' style typos" by not choosing "wikimedia-l" as the list name.[1] I'm still not sure a move (from "foundation-l" to "wikimedia-l") has more benefit than cost.
MZMcBride
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It's a matter of creating a separate list and importing the members from the current list (foundation-l), right?
Yep.
Will foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org continue to function after April 7 (as a redirect/alias) or will only the new address?
Only the new address unless we're being extra clever, which I'm not sure is necessary.
Will the archives be permanently split?
Probably -- advanced mailman surgeries carry a high risk of fatal mistakes (e.g. we have a fancy pipermail URL alias, but the archive rebuild is causing URLs to change, or some such nonsense), so it's generally best to avoid them. But I'll ask Daniel Zahn, who's performed some trickier surgeries recently without fatalities (as far as I know).
Are there any other consequences of a list rename?
You will feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
I'll note (again) that in your 2004 proposal to create "foundation-l" you specifically cited the desire to "avoid 'Wikipedia/Wikimedia' style typos" by not choosing "wikimedia-l" as the list name.[1] I'm still not sure a move (from "foundation-l" to "wikimedia-l") has more benefit than cost.
I am indeed aware of my own objection, even if it is somewhat dated. The main reason for making this change, IMO, is to account for sensibilities and perceptions that largely did not exist in 2004, when "Foundation" first and foremost referred to a bunch of people who cared more about meta-issues than others -- the org as such barely existed beyond paper, let alone the complex network of chapters, the GLAM groups, etc.
Now, when you have discussions like the recently posted Draft Charter of the Wikimedia Chapters Association, or the previous extensive discussions about fundraising, to undertake them in a venue named after one specific org serves as a distraction, and has caused some people to express that they don't want to participate because it's a list for "Wikimedia Foundation matters", giving people justification to move things to private lists that should be public.
So, names do matter. I'd be happy to have an even more generic name that avoids potential typo issues, but I do think the benefit of making the name less WMF-centric outweighs the cost.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Are there any other consequences of a list rename?
You will feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
:D
A few pages at Meta-Wiki (and possibly wikimediafoundation.org) will need to be updated to reflect this change. Adding a hatnote to the foundation-l archives and listinfo pages would be nice, too. Anything to reduce the inevitable confusion that will accompany this change.
One other thing to think about while you're making larger adjustments: it's possible to customize the listinfo page to not be so ghastly. For example, compare https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l with https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l. Perhaps one of the designers can work on making the new wikimedia-l listinfo page less ugly and off-putting?
MZMcBride
One other thing to think about while you're making larger adjustments: it's possible to customize the listinfo page to not be so ghastly. For example, compare https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l with https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l. Perhaps one of the designers can work on making the new wikimedia-l listinfo page less ugly and off-putting?
MZMcBride
The designer could also use https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/accounts-enwiki-l for some inspiration, which is an improvement to the wikien-l mailing list (it has dynamic resizing for example). Source code is at https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist, https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist/blob/master/listinfo.html is the main page and https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist/blob/master/options.html is the page with all the subscription options once you've logged in.
I don't know if this makes sense, so I beg your patience for my ignorance. But would it be an option to duplicate the archive? Then both the old and the new links will work. It would be a Great Pity if the new list would not contain the archive of the old list.
Best, Lodewijk
No dia 4 de Abril de 2012 01:43, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.comescreveu:
One other thing to think about while you're making larger adjustments:
it's
possible to customize the listinfo page to not be so ghastly. For
example,
compare https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l with https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l. Perhaps one of the designers can work on making the new wikimedia-l listinfo page less ugly and off-putting?
MZMcBride
The designer could also use https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/accounts-enwiki-l for some inspiration, which is an improvement to the wikien-l mailing list (it has dynamic resizing for example). Source code is at https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist, https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist/blob/master/listinfo.html is the main page and https://github.com/enwikipedia-acc/mailinglist/blob/master/options.html is the page with all the subscription options once you've logged in. -- Thehelpfulone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone English Wikipedia Administrator _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 April 2012 07:04, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Will the archives be permanently split?
Probably -- advanced mailman surgeries carry a high risk of fatal mistakes (e.g. we have a fancy pipermail URL alias, but the archive rebuild is causing URLs to change, or some such nonsense), so it's generally best to avoid them. But I'll ask Daniel Zahn, who's performed some trickier surgeries recently without fatalities (as far as I know).
On 4 April 2012 10:15, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't know if this makes sense, so I beg your patience for my ignorance. But would it be an option to duplicate the archive? Then both the old and the new links will work. It would be a Great Pity if the new list would not contain the archive of the old list.
Best, Lodewijk
Hi Lodewijk,
This is what Erik meant by "advanced mailman surgeries" - it's tricky business so it might not be possible, but I imagine they will still try!
THO
Looking a bit further into the best way to do this - since mailman doesn't have any sensible export/import features that retain list member settings, we'll probably need to make a full copy of the list on the server, and then remove the members of the old one. I'll ask Daniel to look into that next week and have held off for now.
As for archives, Daniel says it shouldn't be a problem to keep the old archives under the old URL, but to also to copy them (with new URLs) into the new list. The only disadvantage I see that in the event we need to do any removals of old posts, we'll need to remember to do it in both places.
All best, Erik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org