I was glad to see this detailed note of an important gap in search, but it left me wondering how the board views its role in strategic planning?
TL;DR: top-level prioritization should be done in a more public and transparent manner, probably with more board input
Historically, it seems like the board has approached the strategic plan as something to review after the plan is solidified rather than driving the plan in a meaningful way. There is a bit of evidence that the board is taking a more active role in planning in the 2016 Governance recommendations [1], although it looks like it is being sent to the Audit Committee, which I'm not sure I agree with.
In 2015, when the board opened up for Q&A questions at its noticeboard [2], some of the questions were around the board's view of specific issues. The only board member who mostly responded deferred having any judgment on features or software issues whatsoever. For example, someone questioned Superprotect, with the board member responding: "I think that the super protect feature is something that falls within the domain of our Executive Director, whom I trust to have good judgment. I would personally never vote for or against a specific feature of Mediawiki software, unless this is at the specific request of the Executive Director, it simply is not our job" ...
Features like Visual Editor, Flow, or search improvements are voted on whenever the budget comes up. It may be dressed up as "Editing" or "Discovery", but it's basically about a large, long-term feature. And work on these features is done at the cost of not working other items such as features requested by editors (see Community Tech) or other stakeholders (e.g., unclear how line-level employee feedback is rolled up).
When I was on the board of a couple nonprofits, we did relatively detailed strategic planning. For example, the board decided it was important to overhaul and modernize our website, and then we monitored progress on its overhaul by staff over time. It wasn't easy to extract priorities from a bunch of people with diverse opinions on what was worth doing, and staff played a huge role in recommending and assembling these opinions into a reasonably scoped plan which they ultimately executed. But the board took ownership of the plan because they played a major part in its draft.
Historically, boards were the driver of major plans (see *Governance as Leadership*, p4 [3]) but as nonprofits grew large, that role is often taken by executive leadership.
It's up to the board to figure out how it wants to run the organization, but I hope to see the board taking a stronger, more public role in planning. Perhaps I just haven't read deeply enough, but the strategic planning process seems like a black box right now. My hope is that board members feel comfortable championing causes that they feel are important, but also take time to champion the causes that are important to other stakeholders, which can be discovered through well-designed research, surveys, and anecdotes (like this search observation!). I do recall filling out a survey on future WMF priorities a few months ago, but I don't recall feeling altogether satisfied with it.
I feel bad about this wall of text.
Random postscripts:
When I was serving on boards, I read an interesting book called *Governance as Leadership* which emphasized the somewhat fuzzy concept of "generative thinking" which allows the board and executive team to partner effectively. It also puts the history and typical roles that a board plays into context.
It's important to keep marginal cost and return on investment in mind. Even Google continues to spend an enormous amount on search.
I work as a software developer in downtown San Francisco. A couple of my friends work at privately-funded startups - ranging from 20 to 70 people - where the employees literally vote on the company's direction. At my company, the strategy is set by the executive team, where engineering hours are allocated to various categories (new products, maintenance, internal engineering). We do a lot of estimation to allow the product and executive team to figure out what new features make sense, and a lot of the internal engineering time goes into devops, refactoring and underlying architectural improvements.
Sam Altman of Y Combinator noted: "The company will build what the CEO measures". So if the board has a goal in mind, think carefully about the metrics. [4]
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_Governance_Recommendations_(April...) [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archi... [3] https://smile.amazon.com/Governance-Leadership-Reframing-Nonprofit-Boards/dp... [4] http://blog.samaltman.com/startup-advice-briefly
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen < list-wikimedia@funcrunch.org> wrote:
One risk of using Google to search Wikipedia is getting bad results. For several weeks, a Google search for "gender" returned a disruptive edit[1] that replaced the entire article with " There are only 2 genders. Male and Female." That edit, from May of this year, was only live for a few minutes, but got cached in Google somehow, resulting in this (mis)information being prominently displayed near the top of the search results. Only recently has a search on that term begun returning the updated page (which is now semi-protected through June 2017 due to excessive vandalism.)
- Pax
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender&oldid=722247975
-- Pax Ahimsa Gethen | http://funcrunch.org
On 7/28/16 5:37 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
We recently had a thread in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, where we pretty much concluded the reason why we don’t have word in English for “looked it up in Wikipedia” is because that word is “Googled it.” :)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1050447111669786/
-Andrew
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
First, some context:
I was in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention earlier this week, where I had been invited to speak (in a small side event) about connectivity and global development. I spoke about our work in the languages of the developing world, and made a point to say that bad laws in the developed world which might hurt our work can be damaging for the development of the Internet in the rest of the world and urged lawmakers to not just think of various Internet legal questions as being "Silicon Valley versus Hollywood" but to understand that they impact how our volunteer community and many other ordinary people online.
Second, the story:
The main conference was held in the [[Wells Fargo Center (Philadelphia)]], an indoor arena where basketball and hockey teams play normally.
A journalist friend said to me that he "finally found something that Wikipedia doesn't have" and he was surprised. What was that, I said? "The history of Wells Fargo". What?!! Really?!! That seemed impossible to me. He said we have an article about Wells Fargo that seems to be mostly about the contemporary bank, and when you search for Wells Fargo history there's also an article about the Wells Fargo History Museum.
I popped on my phone and used my own personal preferred method of finding things in Wikipedia: Google. I typed in "Wells Fargo history" and sure enough, the first two links are history pages from their official websites and the third link is Wikipedia - a normal state of affairs. He started to apologize for raising a false alarm
I asked him for more details on exactly how he searched, and explained that I regard it to be very sad if some volunteers spend hundreds of hours working on an article, painstakingly going over tons of details in an effort to get it right, and then someone couldn't find it.
Here's what he did - and I replicated the steps and all was clear.
Go to http://www.wikipedia.org/
Make sure the dropdown in the search box is set to 'EN' - which it would have been for him.
Start typing 'Wells Fargo history' and watch as the dropdown selections narrow. You'll have the experience that he had - you'll see the bank article prominently featured and then various buildings (they have a habit of sponsoring sports arenas in various US cities) and finally as you start typing history it focuses in on the History Museum.
If you don't choose any of those, then hit enter, you'll get to the search results page. This is the one with a huge box of options at the top (which will be confusing and frightening to people who aren't already wikipedians) and then by my count the desired article is 13th on the page: [[History of Wells Fargo]].
Now, I strongly suspect this could be fixed by making a redirect from [[Wells Fargo history]] to [[History of Wells Fargo]].
Or a more serious fix could be had if the search engine understood that very very often in English [[X of Y]] can be written [[Y X]]. ([[List of French monarchs]] becomes [[French monarchs list]], see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=french+monarchs+list where the desired article is in 10th place.
But my point is not to argue for any specific fix. My point is to illustrate that there is a real problem with search, that it is impacting users, and that we should invest in fixing it.
--Jimbo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Ben.
Just a few comments:
* The WMF Board has limited bandwidth, and they have a lot on their agenda right now. I'm not sure how much of strategic work they can do while also handling their other priorities, so some dependence on the ED is likely necessary.
* Some members of the WMF Board have voiced the feeling that they would like the Board to have a leading role rather than a reactionary one. It looks to me like the governance review could be considered a step in this direction. Having the Board take a public and leading role in developing strategy with a transparent and thoughtful approach would be great to see, so +1 to your comments on this topic.
* I get the sense that both the current Board and Katherine are trying to take a responsive and cooperative approach to community input, so I am cautiously optimistic that in the big picture WMF is heading in a good direction.
Comments about specifics of strategic planning:
* One of my current concerns is the usability of Wikimedia sites for both readers and contributors; we have some powerful tools but our usability leaves much to be desired, and fixing an approximately 10 to 15 year design and features deficit might require a lot more design and engineering resources than WMF can recruit with its current income streams. I am hopeful that WMF can boost its design and engineering capacity while maintaining good relations with the community, and also while investing more resources in developing GLAM+STEM and other offline support of affiliate programs that have good cost-benefit ratios.
* WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if we have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the viability of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to continue whether or not WMF is with us.
Thanks again for your post.
Regards,
Pine
Hey Pine,
The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to
*"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity". [1]*
The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects. Even if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should, in the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit and appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of legal, fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an alternative organisation to fulfill that work.
Regards
Seddon
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment
- WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if we have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the viability of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to continue whether or not WMF is with us.
Thanks again for your post.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
I love to write long emails, but four in a row would too much.
As said before we are taking up our leadership role.
The strategy process *is* a black box right now. We (Katherine mostly) have been working on the process for a few weeks. We will share soon I hope, the first part of that process.
I would just ask you a little time, it has only been a month that Katherine and I have been in our current positions. Even if works was started before that, decisions to move forward with a movement strategy is only a month old.
And as said before, this year we are focusing on building the foundations we need to get Wikimedia Foundation in a better place. So, basicly, we won't go down to the feature level and focus on th global level :)
Happy to talk on that topic :)
Le 2 août 2016 7:19 AM, "Joseph Seddon" jseddon@wikimedia.org a écrit :
Hey Pine,
The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to
*"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity". [1]*
The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects. Even if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should, in the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit and appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of legal, fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an alternative organisation to fulfill that work.
Regards
Seddon
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment
- WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if
we
have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the
viability
of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure even if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but it would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community to continue whether or not WMF is with us.
Thanks again for your post.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Christophe! I reviewed some of the earlier emails responding to the June minutes and realized that Pine actually touched on this same topic just a bit ago and as I recall Katherine gave a great overview of her approach, so my apologies in bringing it up again so soon. No need to respond to this email.
With that said, I hope that when the initial framework is released it will have a bit more information on the motivation and background research that went into it than the April 2016 Governance recommendations...
If you're coming up with an important overhaul like this and an explicit goal is to be transparent with the community, it could be worthwhile to start the process with transparency by being explicit in answering questions like "who did you talk to", "what did you read and think was compelling", "what are you unsure about", "is there any empirical evidence", etc. Maybe the answer to some questions (like empirical research) is "we don't know and we don't think it's worth the time", but I'd be interested in hearing that explicitly rather than implicitly. The WMF is unique: the closest I can think of is the Mozilla Foundation (which I doubt has great governance) and maybe the Khan Academy (an amazing leader like Sal Khan makes careful governance less necessary). GNOME and KDE have tiny budgets with almost no employees, so their boards have little influence on the software. Environmental nonprofits can be fairly large and complex, altho the small ones end up as contractors for foundations (e.g., SEACC, one of the nonprofits I was involved with). Museums are relatively simple. Schools and hospitals are the ones that come to mind which grapple with commonly grapple difficult management decisions on the scale of WMF. Also, elected boards (even partially) are quite uncommon; Sierra Club is a notable elected board, but with 15 members it can't be very effective at all.
Also, if you want to be transparent and not over scope, it may be worth forecasting categories of how the board expects to allocate its limited time and then retrospectively reporting on how it actually spent its time to the community. I see that the Governance recommendation includes a plan is to have solid annual agenda, and perhaps that will basically address the issue of the board putting too much on its plate. However, when I read "Avoid letting minority perspectives disproportionately take up the Foundation and the Board's attention" it actually kind of bothered me. How do we know know if something is a minority perspective? Instead of "minority perspectives", it should be about "minor issues". The problem in the last year or two was more about the board (apparently) ignoring perspectives than it was about the board giving them undue attention. My personal experience and recollection from the book I recommended earlier, *Governance as Leadership*, is that it not uncommon for boards to end up spending a lot of time on housekeeping small items (e.g., bylaws tweaks), which could be relatively minor.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I love to write long emails, but four in a row would too much.
As said before we are taking up our leadership role.
The strategy process *is* a black box right now. We (Katherine mostly) have been working on the process for a few weeks. We will share soon I hope, the first part of that process.
I would just ask you a little time, it has only been a month that Katherine and I have been in our current positions. Even if works was started before that, decisions to move forward with a movement strategy is only a month old.
And as said before, this year we are focusing on building the foundations we need to get Wikimedia Foundation in a better place. So, basicly, we won't go down to the feature level and focus on th global level :)
Happy to talk on that topic :)
Le 2 août 2016 7:19 AM, "Joseph Seddon" jseddon@wikimedia.org a écrit :
Hey Pine,
The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to
*"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity". [1]*
The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects. Even if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should, in the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit and appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of legal, fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an alternative organisation to fulfill that work.
Regards
Seddon
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment
- WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that if
we
have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the
viability
of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in many ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure
even
if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never again have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but
it
would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community
to
continue whether or not WMF is with us.
Thanks again for your post.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hey Ben,
That is exactly what we have in mind. That is way during Wikimania I sent an email about the board priorities for the on-going year (board improvement, ED support, movement strategy).
Doing so doesn't mean we're ignoring anything that doesn't fall into one of this priorities, but that those are the priorities we want to tackle heavily this year. And of course, we will report on them.
If you want, you can keep an eye on the board governance committee meta pages. Natalia is doing a really great work documenting our work there.
As for the strategy process it will be an inclusive and open one :)
Happy to discuss those matters!
Christophe
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Ben Creasy ben@bencreasy.com wrote:
Thanks Christophe! I reviewed some of the earlier emails responding to the June minutes and realized that Pine actually touched on this same topic just a bit ago and as I recall Katherine gave a great overview of her approach, so my apologies in bringing it up again so soon. No need to respond to this email.
With that said, I hope that when the initial framework is released it will have a bit more information on the motivation and background research that went into it than the April 2016 Governance recommendations...
If you're coming up with an important overhaul like this and an explicit goal is to be transparent with the community, it could be worthwhile to start the process with transparency by being explicit in answering questions like "who did you talk to", "what did you read and think was compelling", "what are you unsure about", "is there any empirical evidence", etc. Maybe the answer to some questions (like empirical research) is "we don't know and we don't think it's worth the time", but I'd be interested in hearing that explicitly rather than implicitly. The WMF is unique: the closest I can think of is the Mozilla Foundation (which I doubt has great governance) and maybe the Khan Academy (an amazing leader like Sal Khan makes careful governance less necessary). GNOME and KDE have tiny budgets with almost no employees, so their boards have little influence on the software. Environmental nonprofits can be fairly large and complex, altho the small ones end up as contractors for foundations (e.g., SEACC, one of the nonprofits I was involved with). Museums are relatively simple. Schools and hospitals are the ones that come to mind which grapple with commonly grapple difficult management decisions on the scale of WMF. Also, elected boards (even partially) are quite uncommon; Sierra Club is a notable elected board, but with 15 members it can't be very effective at all.
Also, if you want to be transparent and not over scope, it may be worth forecasting categories of how the board expects to allocate its limited time and then retrospectively reporting on how it actually spent its time to the community. I see that the Governance recommendation includes a plan is to have solid annual agenda, and perhaps that will basically address the issue of the board putting too much on its plate. However, when I read "Avoid letting minority perspectives disproportionately take up the Foundation and the Board's attention" it actually kind of bothered me. How do we know know if something is a minority perspective? Instead of "minority perspectives", it should be about "minor issues". The problem in the last year or two was more about the board (apparently) ignoring perspectives than it was about the board giving them undue attention. My personal experience and recollection from the book I recommended earlier, *Governance as Leadership*, is that it not uncommon for boards to end up spending a lot of time on housekeeping small items (e.g., bylaws tweaks), which could be relatively minor.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi,
I love to write long emails, but four in a row would too much.
As said before we are taking up our leadership role.
The strategy process *is* a black box right now. We (Katherine mostly)
have
been working on the process for a few weeks. We will share soon I hope, the first part of that process.
I would just ask you a little time, it has only been a month that
Katherine
and I have been in our current positions. Even if works was started
before
that, decisions to move forward with a movement strategy is only a month old.
And as said before, this year we are focusing on building the foundations we need to get Wikimedia Foundation in a better place. So, basicly, we won't go down to the feature level and focus on th global level :)
Happy to talk on that topic :)
Le 2 août 2016 7:19 AM, "Joseph Seddon" jseddon@wikimedia.org a écrit
:
Hey Pine,
The Wikimedia Endowment is specifically set up to
*"act as a permanent safekeeping fund to generate income to support the operations and activities of the Wikimedia projects in perpetuity".
[1]*
The Endowment acts as the online projects safety net. It will be independent of the Wikimedia Foundation board and importantly It's not there to support the WMF in perpetuity, it's the Wikimedia projects.
Even
if the WMF is likely to be the main benefactor from the fund; should,
in
the eyes of the Endowment Advisory Board, the WMF be no longer a fit
and
appropriate body to support the Wikimedia projects (as a result of
legal,
fiduciary or other issues), it has the ability to provide fund to an alternative organisation to fulfill that work.
Regards
Seddon
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Establishment_of_Endowment
- WMF remains a single point of failure in the Wikimedia network of
affiliates. I am hoping that mitigating the community and affiliate dependencies on WMF will be addressed in the strategic plan, so that
if
we
have another mess like we had prior to Katherine, the affiliates and community will have a plan that can be executed that ensures the
viability
of the Wikimedia sites and affiliates without WMF. WMF can fail in
many
ways; besides governance meltdowns, lawsuits and hostile political environments are also risks. The sites and affiliates need to endure
even
if WMF weakens, loses its way, or dissolves. I hope that we never
again
have a repeat of last year and that WMF is healthy in the future, but
it
would be prudent to have a strategty for the affiliates and community
to
continue whether or not WMF is with us.
Thanks again for your post.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ben Creasy http://bencreasy.com http://bencreasy.com?t=email _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org