Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai... and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... ).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai... and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Carlos,
Is there a reason why the list is private? The topics you mentioned—general affiliate discussion, regional conferences, blog post announcements, and so on—don't seem particularly sensitive. (I'm just curious. My WMF role has nothing to do with affiliates and I wouldn't subscribe to the list even if it were public.)
Thanks!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... ).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Neil,
I’ll let Carlos add his thoughts, but basically, this was a consistent request from affiliates. So the short answer is that the target audience requested it, and we want them to use it. :) The page that Pine mentioned (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment) is one example of where this request came up.
Slightly longer answer, and I am interpreting and summarizing what I heard from affiliates, is that they would like a space to privately discuss issues - sometimes sensitive in nature - with each other. As Carlos mentioned, the first mentioned goal is a space for affiliates to discuss issues specific to their work. I think the concern is that if it was up for public review (not that affiliates fear public debates), they might be less willing or even able to discuss some issues that might, for example, involve financial matters, privacy issues, or embargoed communications.
Hope that helps answer your question.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Neil P. Quinn nquinn@wikimedia.org wrote:
Carlos,
Is there a reason why the list is private? The topics you mentioned—general affiliate discussion, regional conferences, blog post announcements, and so on—don't seem particularly sensitive. (I'm just curious. My WMF role has nothing to do with affiliates and I wouldn't subscribe to the list even if it were public.)
Thanks!
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... ).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Neil P. Quinn https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_P._Quinn-WMF, product analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to. We did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that is not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... ).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai... and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to. We did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that is not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
to
discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
to
discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
to
discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to
discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
> Dear all, > > On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the > launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
place
> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to
> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other > affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint > edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other > communications from affiliates. > > Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
> additional spots if needed. > > Please find a bit more information on Meta: >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. > > Regards, > Carlos > -- > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
> Carlos M. Colina > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
> http://wikimedia.org.ve > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee > Phone: +972-52-4869915 > Twitter: @maor_x > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > 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
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 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal. This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
> ). > > Thanks, > > Pine > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
place >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The
>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >> communications from affiliates. >> >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>> additional spots if needed. >> >> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> -- >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve >> http://wikimedia.org.ve >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >> Twitter: @maor_x >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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 > 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 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Again - I do not feel comfortable making this decision on behalf of the affiliates. I will pass all of this along to them when we have a list going enough to discuss such things.
If the consensus from the community is that a change be imposed on this list, which I agree is the right of the community, my personal hunch is that a new list will be created elsewhere and used instead. Keep in mind that chapters-l was maintained off WMF servers in part to protect privacy and prevent it from being subject to such changes. Again, if the goal is for the list to be used by affiliates, I question the reason to impose change on them, especially when it was something they specifically requested.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal. This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey Pine, > > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. > > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
> manage. > > -greg (User:Varnent) > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee > > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>> ). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pine >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < > maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
> place >>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
> to >>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The >>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, >>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >>> communications from affiliates. >>> >>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the > mailing >>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>>> additional spots if needed. >>> >>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Carlos >>> -- >>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua >>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." >>> Carlos M. Colina >>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | > www.wikimedia.org.ve >>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>> Twitter: @maor_x >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> 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 >> 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 > 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running an affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you can't imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience. Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task wanted to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I am not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their messages.
And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community. The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task. The "we versus them" thoughts.
And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small amount of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard discussions that occur from time to time.
Romaine
2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal. This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
issue
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
privacy.
One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
like
to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
suppose)
by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much,
or
create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.
If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether
its
archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so"
and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are
not
publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using
this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers,
local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a
good
number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the
whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we
really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should
be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
generally
(there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <gregory.varnum@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hey Pine, > > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. > > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
majority
of
> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
> manage. > > -greg (User:Varnent) > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee > > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>> ). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pine >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < > maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
> place >>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
> to >>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The >>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, >>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >>> communications from affiliates. >>> >>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the > mailing >>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>>> additional spots if needed. >>> >>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Carlos >>> -- >>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua >>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." >>> Carlos M. Colina >>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | > www.wikimedia.org.ve >>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>> Twitter: @maor_x >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> 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 >> 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 > 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi All,
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If there isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera. If affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare of publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't force them into some form of radical transparency.
Cheers, Craig
On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running an affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you can't imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience. Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task wanted to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I am not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their messages.
And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community. The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task. The "we versus them" thoughts.
And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small amount of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard discussions that occur from time to time.
Romaine
2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal. This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling
the
list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
there
is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
occurring
in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
broader
community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
issue
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on
the
list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
privacy.
One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
include
financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with
the
WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
several
private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
like
to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
suppose)
by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the
target
audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward.
The
end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as
much,
or
create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like
to
avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to
the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.
If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the
list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether
its
archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need
private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so"
and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are
not
publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using
this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers,
local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a
good
number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is
best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure
is
imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the
whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests
for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and
make
changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the
list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should
require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency
and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> Got it. Thanks Varnent. > > Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we
really
want
> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should
be
run
> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other
hand,
if
the
> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among
affiliates
in
a
> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
employees
to a
> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
generally
> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years
as
> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
> on this. > > Pine > On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com
> wrote: > >> Hey Pine, >> >> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you
referred
to.
> We >> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing
that
list
>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. >> >> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected
to
>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming >> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
majority
of
>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time,
but
that
> is >> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
>> manage. >> >> -greg (User:Varnent) >> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee >> >> >>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
>>> >>> Hi Carlos, >>> >>> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>>> ). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < >> maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to
introduce
the
>>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
>> place >>>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
>> to >>>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
other
>>>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
> The >>>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our > movement, >>>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >>>> communications from affiliates. >>>> >>>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on
the
>> mailing >>>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>>>> additional spots if needed. >>>> >>>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>>> >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further
questions.
>>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Carlos >>>> -- >>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee > wayuukanairua >>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya > junain." >>>> Carlos M. Colina >>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | >> www.wikimedia.org.ve >>>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>>> Twitter: @maor_x >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> 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 >>> 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 >> 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 > 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is "private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could be used to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and problems must not be hidden from the "public".
This privates clubs are not coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement.
On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi All,
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If there isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera. If affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare of publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't force them into some form of radical transparency.
Cheers, Craig
On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running
an
affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you
can't
imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience. Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task
wanted
to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I
am
not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their messages.
And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community. The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task.
The
"we versus them" thoughts.
And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small
amount
of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard discussions that occur from time to time.
Romaine
2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is
suboptimal.
This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling
the
list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is
going
to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
there
is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
occurring
in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should
be
private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be
discussed
on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
broader
community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled
garden
they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
issue
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on
the
list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
privacy.
One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
include
financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with
the
WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
several
private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
like
to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
suppose)
by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the
target
audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward.
The
end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as
much,
or
create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like
to
avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never
made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list
publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to
the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its
purpose.
If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those
founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count
in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the
list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review
whether
its
archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need
private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do
so"
and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages
are
not
publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using
this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger
community
forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers,
local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a
good
number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is
best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure
is
imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the
whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests
for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and
make
changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the
list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com
wrote:
> > I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should
require
more > than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency
and
create > yet another walled garden away from the community. > > --Ed > On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > >> Got it. Thanks Varnent. >> >> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we
really
want >> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it
should
be
run >> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other
hand,
if
the >> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among
affiliates
in
a >> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
employees
to a >> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I >> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
generally
>> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of
years
as
>> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
>> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks
for
working >> on this. >> >> Pine >> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com
>> wrote: >> >>> Hey Pine, >>> >>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions >>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you
referred
to.
>> We >>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing
that
list >>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, >>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. >>> >>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially
connected
to
>>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has
becoming
>>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
majority
of >>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently.
My
personal >>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time,
but
that >> is >>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we
officially
help
>>> manage. >>> >>> -greg (User:Varnent) >>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
>>>> >>>> Hi Carlos, >>>> >>>> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>>>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >>>> >>> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>>>> ). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Pine >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < >>> maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to
introduce
the
>>>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
>>> place >>>>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations,
user
groups) >>> to >>>>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
other
>>>>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
>> The >>>>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our >> movement, >>>>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
activities,
joint
>>>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or
other
>>>>> communications from affiliates. >>>>> >>>>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on
the
>>> mailing >>>>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee
to
request >>>>> additional spots if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>>>> >>> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further
questions.
>>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Carlos >>>>> -- >>>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee >> wayuukanairua >>>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi
waya
>> junain." >>>>> Carlos M. Colina >>>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | >>> www.wikimedia.org.ve >>>>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>>>> Twitter: @maor_x >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>> 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 >> 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 > 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617
529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
the proliferation of lists is also an issue as someone who's been on a chapter committee for 2 years and going into my third finding the right lists to join is a problem.
When you rely solely on electronic means of contact you never get the knowledge of the where discussions are taking place and again the private lists ensure thats perpetuated. I understand the reasonings for private when groups are talking, that makes it critical in maintaining the currency of lists. The list should be without restriction to all members of a committee not limited to two or three as that tends to contribute to a rapid knowledge decay, missed opportunities and facilitation of power plays all of which ultimately make poor decisions easier to incur and harder to fix
On 21 October 2015 at 11:13, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is "private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could be used to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and problems must not be hidden from the "public".
This privates clubs are not coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement.
On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi All,
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If
there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera. If affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare
of
publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't
force
them into some form of radical transparency.
Cheers, Craig
On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like
running
an
affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you
can't
imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience. Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task
wanted
to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that
position
myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I
am
not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their messages.
And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community. The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is
by
saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task.
The
"we versus them" thoughts.
And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small
amount
of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of
hard
discussions that occur from time to time.
Romaine
2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is
suboptimal.
This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and
polling
the
list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is
going
to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
there
is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
occurring
in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that
should
be
private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be
discussed
on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
broader
community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled
garden
they're already in.
--Ed
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about
this
issue
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates
on
the
list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
privacy.
One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
include
financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction
with
the
WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community.
My
understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved
in
discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the
expectation
might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
several
private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be
made
private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I
would
like
to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency
is
worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
suppose)
by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the
target
audience of that resource is not the best way to move things
forward.
The
end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as
much,
or
create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would
like
to
avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never
made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list
publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post
to
the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its
purpose.
If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those
founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to
others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count
in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the
list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review
whether
its
archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes: > the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need
private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do
so"
and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages
are
not
publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start
using
this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger
community
forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event
organizers,
local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going
through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there
is a
good
> number of people on it. > > Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is
best
for
> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a
structure
is
> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and
the
whole
> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were
requests
for
the
> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point
and
make
> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the
list
most.
> > -greg (User:Varnent) > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee > > >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should
require
> more >> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce
transparency
and
> create >> yet another walled garden away from the community. >> >> --Ed >> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >>> Got it. Thanks Varnent. >>> >>> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if
we
really
> want >>> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it
should
be
> run >>> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other
hand,
if
> the >>> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among
affiliates
in
> a >>> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
employees
> to a >>> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
> I >>> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
generally
>>> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of
years
as
>>> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
>>> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks
for
> working >>> on this. >>> >>> Pine >>> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com
>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Pine, >>>> >>>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some > discussions >>>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you
referred
to.
>>> We >>>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially
reusing
that
> list >>>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, > ultimately, >>>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. >>>> >>>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially
connected
to
>>>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has
becoming
>>>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
majority
> of >>>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently.
My
> personal >>>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over
time,
but
> that >>> is >>>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we
officially
help
>>>> manage. >>>> >>>> -greg (User:Varnent) >>>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> Hi Carlos, >>>>> >>>>> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing
chapters
mailing
>>>>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >>>>> >>>> >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>>>>> ). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Pine >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < >>>> maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to
introduce
the
>>>>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
>>>> place >>>>>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations,
user
> groups) >>>> to >>>>>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
other
>>>>>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and
community-wide
events.
>>> The >>>>>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
our
>>> movement, >>>>>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
activities,
joint
>>>>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or
other
>>>>>> communications from affiliates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots
on
the
>>>> mailing >>>>>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee
to
> request >>>>>> additional spots if needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>>>>> >>>> >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>>>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further
questions.
>>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Carlos >>>>>> -- >>>>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee >>> wayuukanairua >>>>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi
waya
>>> junain." >>>>>> Carlos M. Colina >>>>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | >>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve >>>>>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>>>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>>>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>>>>> Twitter: @maor_x >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>>>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>> 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 >> 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617
529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20 October 2015 at 18:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not waiting for a hostile environment.
Snipping this separately.
There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic organizations), and this number is growing rapidly. If each one can have two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really remain private and confidential. Anyone who is discussing anything 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in the wrong place. The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
The mailing list can be configured so that only recognized subscribers can post but anyone can view. This has several advantages: reduced mailing list management time/costs, ability of other chapter execs/members to keep up with discussions when the subscriber members are unavailable, ability of potential user groups and other affiliates to learn from osmosis, not only from current discussions but from archives. Learning patterns can be pulled out of the archives once the list has been around for a while. Public lists also tend to moderate the behaviour of those who may push things in inappropriate directions (sexist or harassing comments, bullying, etc).
I don't have a pony in this race, but I do have a ton of experience with nonpublic Wikimedia movement related mailing lists - and most of the ones that "work" effectively and are good methods for sharing information are ones with very specific and narrow functions that deal with information that is covered under the access to nonpublic information policy. Regardless of whether the decision is a public or a private list, ensure that there are hard rules about who can and cannot subscribe, what actions will be considered unacceptable, and what will be done if any subscriber behaves inappropriately (e.g., does the person get unsubscribed, is there an appeal mechanism, what's the complaints mechanism, do affiliates who have a member "unsubscribed" get to replace that person with someone else, etc.)
Risker/Anne
Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs few subscribers per chapter.
The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.
The need of privacy is crucial.
Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for affiliates.
Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be difficult to assure a privacy.
If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the first post.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
Snipping this separately.
There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic organizations), and this number is growing rapidly. If each one can have two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really remain private and confidential. Anyone who is discussing anything 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in the wrong place. The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that so? And candidates? To what?
On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs few subscribers per chapter.
The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.
The need of privacy is crucial.
Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for affiliates.
Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be difficult to assure a privacy.
If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the first post.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
Snipping this separately.
There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic organizations), and this number is growing rapidly. If each one can have two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really remain private and confidential. Anyone who is discussing anything 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in the wrong place. The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that so? And candidates? To what?
On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs few subscribers per chapter.
The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.
The need of privacy is crucial.
Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for affiliates.
Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be difficult to assure a privacy.
If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the first post.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
Snipping this separately.
There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic organizations), and this number is growing rapidly. If each one can have two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really remain private and confidential. Anyone who is discussing anything 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in the wrong place. The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the via will not make any difference.
On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that so? And candidates? To what?
On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs few subscribers per chapter.
The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.
The need of privacy is crucial.
Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for affiliates.
Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be difficult to assure a privacy.
If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the first post.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
Snipping this separately.
There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic organizations), and this number is growing rapidly. If each one can have two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really remain private and confidential. Anyone who is discussing anything 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in the wrong place. The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me.
Before participating to this thread I was really clear: please address any comment of the affiliated selected board seats in another place. Here we are speaking of the mailing list.
It means that, following my coherence, I would strictly comply with the topic of this thread.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 15:18, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the via will not make any difference.
On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...
I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.
And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me." just to border me.
On 21 October 2015 at 11:35, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me.
Before participating to this thread I was really clear: please address any comment of the affiliated selected board seats in another place. Here we are speaking of the mailing list.
It means that, following my coherence, I would strictly comply with the topic of this thread.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 15:18, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the via will not make any difference.
On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The spirit of the Wikimedia Movement I suppose is to be "respectful" of each person.
There is the freedom to be informed, there is the freedom of the opinion but these freedoms have limits and the limits are set where another freedom starts because I think that it's clear that there are other freedoms like the respect of the privacy.
Anyway I suggest you to make your proposal to person in charge of the selection, appointed every time the process starts, may be this person can take your comment in consideration.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 15:49, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...
I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.
And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me." just to border me.
How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any argument that corroborates to your statement.
On 21 October 2015 at 12:13, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
The spirit of the Wikimedia Movement I suppose is to be "respectful" of each person.
There is the freedom to be informed, there is the freedom of the opinion but these freedoms have limits and the limits are set where another freedom starts because I think that it's clear that there are other freedoms like the respect of the privacy.
Anyway I suggest you to make your proposal to person in charge of the selection, appointed every time the process starts, may be this person can take your comment in consideration.
Kind regards
On 21.10.2015 15:49, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...
I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.
And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me." just to border me.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.
On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the process decided that.
Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.
I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.
I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any argument that corroborates to your statement.
Yes, I know, you do not understand.
Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.
Regards
*q.e.d.* no arguments, nothing more to add, just ''ad hominem'', and provocations.
On 21 October 2015 at 13:08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.
On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the process decided that.
Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.
I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.
I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any argument that corroborates to your statement.
Yes, I know, you do not understand.
Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.
Regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that
so? And candidates? To what?
To answer that second part first where ever the affiliates as group are represented by an individual..... The first part is simple privacy and doing no harm to that individual
On 21 October 2015 at 23:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com> wrote:
*q.e.d.* no arguments, nothing more to add, just ''ad hominem'', and provocations.
On 21 October 2015 at 13:08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.
On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not
good
to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the process decided that.
Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.
I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.
I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any argument that corroborates to your statement.
Yes, I know, you do not understand.
Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.
Regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argenton@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Chris writes:
My preferred option would be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only, scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an
"affiliates"
list that is open.
There is room for a private list that's only for confidential topics; but the right list for that may already exist. As Risker says, you'd want to limit membership if you expect any confidentiality at all, and focus use of it on that theme.
Risker writes:
<snip other useful comments>
The mailing list can be configured so that only recognized subscribers can post but anyone can view. This has several advantages...
most of the ones that "work" effectively and are good methods for sharing information are ones with very specific and narrow functions that deal with information that is covered under the access to nonpublic information policy.
The purpose of "privacy" on a mailing list with hundreds of subscribers is to avoid easy scrutiny and to bar participation from those who aren't an approved member of the club. Note that affiliates can't simply add subscribers; they have to request them. So the questions are - is a private club concealed from public scrutiny a good idea? Is the opinion of those who would answer "no" relevant or meaningful?
I'd answer "maybe, probably not" to the first and "apparently not" to the second. If they want to waste their time with another dead list with no real purpose and few participants, let them. Few of the subscribers will even share fluency in a common language. The likelihood of anything controversial or negative coming from such a list is higher than if it were public but still quite low.
Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+ of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to "chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but could have been publically archived with no problem.
The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about the process being an undemocratic sham. Apart from that we are stretching back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything interesting on the list.
On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise ratio...)
What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only, scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.
Chris
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
> ). > > Thanks, > > Pine > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
place >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The
>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >> communications from affiliates. >> >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>> additional spots if needed. >> >> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> -- >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve >> http://wikimedia.org.ve >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >> Twitter: @maor_x >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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 > 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 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list - are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept private.
Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+ of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to "chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but could have been publically archived with no problem.
The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about the process being an undemocratic sham. Apart from that we are stretching back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything interesting on the list.
On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise ratio...)
What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only, scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.
Chris
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
formal
recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
gregory.varnum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list
most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand,
if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates
in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey Pine, > > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred
to.
We > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list. > > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
help
> manage. > > -greg (User:Varnent) > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee > > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at >> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
>> ). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pine >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < > maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
basically a
> place >>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
> to >>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
events.
The >>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, >>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
joint
>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >>> communications from affiliates. >>> >>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the > mailing >>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>>> additional spots if needed. >>> >>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Carlos >>> -- >>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua >>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." >>> Carlos M. Colina >>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | > www.wikimedia.org.ve >>> http://wikimedia.org.ve >>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>> Twitter: @maor_x >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> 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 >> 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 > 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list - are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept private.
Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
-greg
I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we want to talk about transparency" post.
< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliate...
There was already a discussion on this list and its privacy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
I suggest building on that rather than starting a whole new one.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list - are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept private.
Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
-greg
I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we want to talk about transparency" post.
< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliate...
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all, I support Chris' arguments and I would add some points.
As administrator of the chapters mailing list I think that the best is to recover some "historical memory", which is never regrettable. Considering that we are going to celebrate several year of birthday of Wikipedia or of Wikimedia projects, I think that the "historical memory" is more than an asset.
I personally can support the creation of a mailing list like this for several reasons:
1) the chapters mailing list is closed for a specific reason 2) users groups cannot be accepted for a specif reason, even if there is a strong pressure 3) The chapters mailing list is hard to maintain because, as closed mailing list, the update and the verification requires time and workload, and this workload is manageable only if there is a limited number of subscriptions
The chapters mailing list exists *only* to assure a neutral (and this word makes sense) and a "demilitarized zone" to discuss and to announce the selection of the WMF's board members assigned to the chapters.
I would not open here a long discussion about the process or about the assignments to the chapters of these two seats (not all WMF board members are selected by the community), the chapters are considered as a stakeholder and the chapters asked to have a place like this. So please discuss in other places this item.
So the point 1) is justified.
The users groups cannot be accepted until the users groups cannot participate in this selection because the main aim of the mailing list is exactly that. So the point 2) is justified.
I personally can assure that to keep this place "neutral" there is a long verification of the eligibility of the members and it requires a lot of time.
The chapters mailing list has very low traffic because is used also to make some announcements (for instance the Wikimedia Conference) because not all chapters members follow Wikimedia-l.
Except these two utilization, there are nothing else.
At this point I would correct my sentence and I would say that: "I personally can support the creation of a mailing list" but I would add "not a twin of the chapters mailing list".
A closed and limited mailing list will be a simple replication of the chapters mailing list except the big workload to manage more subscriptions. It makes sense and can complete the chapters mailing list only if it is "open" and "transparent". Anyone who would open an user group can follow it, any chapters who would use the chapters mailing list for a use different to the main one, would be addressed to the open mailing list.
And as personal hint I suggest to keep it open because the management of a close mailing list with a high number of eligible subscribers may require a lot of time and verification.
Kind regards
On 19.10.2015 21:12, Chris Keating wrote:
Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+ of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to "chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but could have been publically archived with no problem.
The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about the process being an undemocratic sham. Apart from that we are stretching back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything interesting on the list.
On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise ratio...)
What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only, scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.
Chris
Like Greg explained, the request to have such a list came *from the affiliates* themselves. So why force it to become another wikimedia-l?
M.
El 19/10/2015 a las 09:21 p.m., Gregory Varnum escribió:
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list would like to do.
I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.
Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.
-greg
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1 for public archives to start. Private lists are almost never made public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose. If list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
The converse doesn't happen. The only people whose voices count in a decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list. And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its archives should be public.
Gregory Varnum writes:
the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not publicly visible or archived.
The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community forever. And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal recognition process) will be walled out.
SJ
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number of people on it.
Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
create
yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally,
I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing > list? (Also, please see the discussion at >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
> ). > > Thanks, > > Pine > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina < maorx@wikimedia.org.ve> > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint >> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other >> communications from affiliates. >> >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
>> additional spots if needed. >> >> Please find a bit more information on Meta: >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions. >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> -- >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve >> http://wikimedia.org.ve >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >> Twitter: @maor_x >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> 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 > 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 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 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I do question why some members from the community should be involved in chapter/affiliates issues. If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was created.
And there is no transparency reduction. The suggestion that with creating this list the transparency is reduced is an illusion. If affiliates want to communicate with only affiliates, they will found another way to do that without doing that publicly, and that is much less transparent.
Earlier on the chapters mailing list it appeared there is a enough support for a closed list.
Wikimedia is a large movement. In that movement a lot of things are done and a various set of tasks are performed. Each of those people doing the same tasks like to be able to communicate with other people doing the same task(s). To communicate effectively e-mail lists are created. For example, also Wikipedia admins have multiple private mailing lists, arbcom, OTRS, Stewards, etc. They all have sensitive data, but they also just like to be able to share experiences, ask questions with people who do the same tasks, and have some basic level of communication. This communication is essential for doing a task and improving the quality in how this task is executed. This communication will happen anyway. But they are two ways to organise that: organised in a closed mailing list or not organised with people communicate only directly with excluding many relevant people.
No, there is not a new another walled garden, it is just a better organised walled garden that exists already for a long time in other forms.
Romaine
2015-10-19 19:10 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com:
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create yet another walled garden away from the community.
--Ed On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Got it. Thanks Varnent.
Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to
a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
working
on this.
Pine On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Pine,
As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
discussions
with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
We
did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
list
(largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
ultimately,
we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
of
our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
personal
hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
that
is
not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help manage.
-greg (User:Varnent) Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
mailing
list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_li...
).
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
the
launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically
a
place
for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
groups)
to
discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
The
idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
movement,
plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
mailing
list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
request
additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos -- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
junain."
Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve
http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20.10.2015 23:40, Romaine Wiki wrote:
I do question why some members from the community should be involved in chapter/affiliates issues. If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was created.
And there is no transparency reduction. The suggestion that with creating this list the transparency is reduced is an illusion. If affiliates want to communicate with only affiliates, they will found another way to do that without doing that publicly, and that is much less transparent.
There is already a "closed" mailing list but it has a low traffic exactly for the point that it's "closed".
After several discussions within the community about the approach of "closed circle", Chapters would be "open" and "transparent" and would avoid that there is the feeling that in some places are happening machinations or conspiracies.
What is really missed is an "open" space where discussions about chapters can happen.
Kind regards
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai... and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Since October 27th there have been 3 threads, all started by the same person, with a total of 5 posts .
None of which said anything at all confidential. :)
Chris
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking a bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding more affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again - speaking to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally we are making good progress.
Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.
My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.
-greg
On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai... and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an affiliate yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like to cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is censoring and cause people just to not bother with it.
On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking a bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding more affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again - speaking to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally we are making good progress.
Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.
My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.
-greg
On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not intentional.
Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to AffCom?
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an affiliate yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like to cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is censoring and cause people just to not bother with it.
On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking a bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding more affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again - speaking to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally we are making good progress.
Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.
My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.
-greg
On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
appologies, yeah its the Affcom list not the Affiliates list, multiple email from you on both this morning didnt notice the email address change so my appologies again
On 4 November 2015 at 07:33, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not intentional.
Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to AffCom?
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an
affiliate
yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like
to
cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is
censoring
and cause people just to not bother with it.
On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we
have
used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly
why
this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why
WM-l
is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one
good
place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking
a
bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding
more
affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again -
speaking
to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe
personally
we are making good progress.
Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.
My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.
-greg
On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha
scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report
posts,
or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My fault for reusing the subject line. :)
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
appologies, yeah its the Affcom list not the Affiliates list, multiple email from you on both this morning didnt notice the email address change so my appologies again
On 4 November 2015 at 07:33, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not intentional.
Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to AffCom?
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an
affiliate
yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like
to
cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is
censoring
and cause people just to not bother with it.
On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we
have
used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly
why
this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why
WM-l
is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one
good
place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking
a
bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding
more
affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again -
speaking
to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe
personally
we are making good progress.
Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.
My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.
-greg
On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius laurentius.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
At the end, is that mailing list currently active? If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected to contact you?
Laurentius
Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha
scritto:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report
posts,
or other communications from affiliates.
Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.
Please find a bit more information on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mai...
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
Regards, Carlos
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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