I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts?
What do you know about his management experience?
Lawrence Lessig has done wonderful things for the free culture movement (including making that very phrase famous!) I am pretty confident, given his recent interests, that he would not want this position,but he's well worth discussing anyway.
Though I don't know Larry Lessig personally, I do know his organization (Creative Commons) well. And interestingly enough, CC has recently undergone a substantial shift in its leadership (board turnover and CEO turnover). It has been carried out in a remarkably drama-free way; just last week, I talked to the current CEO and two recent past leaders, who all tell very much the same story, and all feel that the organization is better off, despite having gone through some turbulent times, and despite having further work ahead.
I would strongly support any organizational effort to learn from Creative Commons' recent experiences, and how to emulate its success and/or learn from less than ideal parts of its process.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better decision.
I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons - except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as, structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more informed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as Raul Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her current role.
Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first. Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the direction-determining force.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better decision.
I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons - except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as, structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more informed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It
was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we
trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would
be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would possibly be a slap in the face of someone you like.
If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as Raul Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her current role.
Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first. Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the direction-determining force.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better decision.
I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons - except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as, structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more informed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand
of
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
position
at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
with a
different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It
was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we
trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would
be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community,
and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
United
States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks. My understanding is that this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone. In the wiki world, I think most of the time people have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so this might not be exactly the same.
On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would possibly be a slap in the face of someone you like.
If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan@wikimedia.org
wrote:
For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
Raul
Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her current role.
Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first. Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the direction-determining force.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better decision.
I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons - except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as, structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more informed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
dandreescu@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand
of
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
position
at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
start
piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
with a
different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
It
was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
and
what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and
we
trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
is
our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
would
be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community,
and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
United
States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lawrence Lessig is an excellent suggestion, probably would be my Candidate A for the job if he wasn't 'besties' with Jimmy Wales..we have already had issues with the staff and board working together in secrecy without the community's knowledge, we should not have to go through it again.. I agree with Lodewijk, we should not be discussing this BUT the WMF has a habit of selecting the worst candidates for the job on both the board and the staff without the community's input or knowledge, so surely if this is the only way the community can gets its input, then so be it....
On 2/27/16, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks. My understanding is that this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone. In the wiki world, I think most of the time people have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so this might not be exactly the same.
On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would possibly be a slap in the face of someone you like.
If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan@wikimedia.org
wrote:
For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
Raul
Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her current role.
Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first. Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the direction-determining force.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better decision.
I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons - except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as, structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more informed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
dandreescu@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand
of
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
position
at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
start
piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
with a
different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
It
was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
and
what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and
we
trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
is
our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
Original Message From: Yuri Astrakhan Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
would
be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community,
and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
United
States.
Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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@lists.wikimedia.org