Dear all,
As Christophe mentioned, BGC has discussed Board composition issue and decided that the best way is to wait for the results of the governance review. It was mentioned in the minutes, by the way [1]
If you have relevant arguments and think that it would make sense for other people to be aware of these arguments, please, *discuss them on Meta*. Mailing lists are not very useful for things like that. There is a talk page for this [2]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine has a point. We all know that the founder seat will go eventually. Whether it goes on the death or incapacity of the founder or earlier is a valid question for the board and the community. I'm not convinced that an elections committee should be deciding which posts to elect, and even if such governance issues do fall into its remit they should probably focus on how to elect first. So I'd say this should be a board decision.
As for the arguments to retain a founder seat for the next few decades, I suggest that those who favour such a position try to couch their arguments in terms of institutional knowledge, the value of an element of continuity and the positives for the community to still retain such a link with our founder. Then hope that the incidents of a few months ago fade in memory and are not repeated. There is a case to be made for a founder seat, but as with any argument in this community there are ways to argue respectfully and effectively, and there are arguments that undermine your cause and weaken your reputation.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 July 2016 at 06:39, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: New Elections Committee (Pine W)
- Re: New Elections Committee (Gerard Meijssen)
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:53:59 -0700 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee Message-ID: <CAF= dyJiVboVVoZNjXC-Uf7jSy54MWcCxYTva3CcqfpHCe_nnCw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi BGC,
I asked a question earlier in this thread which seems to have been overlooked. Is the BGC (or the Board as a whole) considering whether the Founder's seat will become an elected seat in the forseeable future?
Pine
On Jul 20, 2016 21:20, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
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 Natalia, that seems a good way to deal with this issue. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nataliia Tymkiv Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 11:18 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board structure (Was: New Elections Committee)
Dear all,
As Christophe mentioned, BGC has discussed Board composition issue and decided that the best way is to wait for the results of the governance review. It was mentioned in the minutes, by the way [1]
If you have relevant arguments and think that it would make sense for other people to be aware of these arguments, please, *discuss them on Meta*. Mailing lists are not very useful for things like that. There is a talk page for this [2]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine has a point. We all know that the founder seat will go eventually. Whether it goes on the death or incapacity of the founder or earlier is a valid question for the board and the community. I'm not convinced that an elections committee should be deciding which posts to elect, and even if such governance issues do fall into its remit they should probably focus on how to elect first. So I'd say this should be a board decision.
As for the arguments to retain a founder seat for the next few decades, I suggest that those who favour such a position try to couch their arguments in terms of institutional knowledge, the value of an element of continuity and the positives for the community to still retain such a link with our founder. Then hope that the incidents of a few months ago fade in memory and are not repeated. There is a case to be made for a founder seat, but as with any argument in this community there are ways to argue respectfully and effectively, and there are arguments that undermine your cause and weaken your reputation.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 July 2016 at 06:39, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: New Elections Committee (Pine W)
- Re: New Elections Committee (Gerard Meijssen)
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:53:59 -0700 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee Message-ID: <CAF= dyJiVboVVoZNjXC-Uf7jSy54MWcCxYTva3CcqfpHCe_nnCw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi BGC,
I asked a question earlier in this thread which seems to have been overlooked. Is the BGC (or the Board as a whole) considering whether the Founder's seat will become an elected seat in the forseeable future?
Pine
On Jul 20, 2016 21:20, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12685 - Release Date: 07/26/16
Hi Nataliia,
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on Meta. I would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the Board can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the governance review.
There are times when highly threaded discussions on wiki are easier to follow than large quantities of entangled mailing list posts, but that is an exception, and in any case I follow the philosophy of trying to meet people where they are whenever reasonably feasible.
Thanks,
Pine
On Jul 26, 2016 02:18, "Nataliia Tymkiv" ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
As Christophe mentioned, BGC has discussed Board composition issue and decided that the best way is to wait for the results of the governance review. It was mentioned in the minutes, by the way [1]
If you have relevant arguments and think that it would make sense for other people to be aware of these arguments, please, *discuss them on Meta*. Mailing lists are not very useful for things like that. There is a talk page for this [2]
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Commit... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine has a point. We all know that the founder seat will go eventually. Whether it goes on the death or incapacity of the founder or earlier is a valid question for the board and the community. I'm not convinced that an elections committee should be deciding which posts to elect, and even if such governance issues do fall into its remit they should probably focus
on
how to elect first. So I'd say this should be a board decision.
As for the arguments to retain a founder seat for the next few decades, I suggest that those who favour such a position try to couch their
arguments
in terms of institutional knowledge, the value of an element of
continuity
and the positives for the community to still retain such a link with our founder. Then hope that the incidents of a few months ago fade in memory and are not repeated. There is a case to be made for a founder seat, but
as
with any argument in this community there are ways to argue respectfully and effectively, and there are arguments that undermine your cause and weaken your reputation.
WereSpielChequers
On 26 July 2016 at 06:39, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: New Elections Committee (Pine W)
- Re: New Elections Committee (Gerard Meijssen)
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:53:59 -0700 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee Message-ID: <CAF= dyJiVboVVoZNjXC-Uf7jSy54MWcCxYTva3CcqfpHCe_nnCw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi BGC,
I asked a question earlier in this thread which seems to have been overlooked. Is the BGC (or the Board as a whole) considering whether
the
Founder's seat will become an elected seat in the forseeable future?
Pine
On Jul 20, 2016 21:20, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are times when highly threaded discussions on wiki are easier to follow than large quantities of entangled mailing list posts, but that is an exception, and in any case I follow the philosophy of trying to meet people where they are whenever reasonably feasible.
Thanks,
Pine
That's all well and good, but the significant difference is that email lists are a "push" form of communication. Everyone subscribed receives everything that is send, whether or not they're interested in that specific email. For people who feel the need to comment frequently and at length on every topic, then putting their comments on wiki is not only better for collating their points into a coherent whole, but better for the other list subscribers who don't have to wade through comments that didn't need to be sent to everyone.
I would guess that I receive about 20-100 emails a day (there is a wide range) related to Wikimedia, and I simply pick out the ones that interest me. It's very simple to delete or archive emails that I don't want to read, and I'm willing to accept the noise in exchange for the signal. Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l are high volume lists by nature, and that's part of the deal people make when they subscribe.
In the long run I would like to move to something like Discourse, but as far as I know WMF has yet to allocate the resources to make that possible.
Pine
On Jul 27, 2016 08:33, "Liam Wyatt" liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
There are times when highly threaded discussions on wiki are easier to follow than large quantities of entangled mailing list posts, but that is an exception, and in any case I follow the philosophy of trying to meet people where they are whenever reasonably feasible.
Thanks,
Pine
That's all well and good, but the significant difference is that email lists are a "push" form of communication. Everyone subscribed receives everything that is send, whether or not they're interested in that specific email. For people who feel the need to comment frequently and at length on every topic, then putting their comments on wiki is not only better for collating their points into a coherent whole, but better for the other list subscribers who don't have to wade through comments that didn't need to be sent to everyone.
-- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ 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 Pine,
On 27 July 2016 at 08:25, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on Meta. I would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the Board can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the governance review.
If I'm understanding, you're saying that you've previously left questions on Meta which ended up going unanswered, and therefore you'd prefer to ask questions on this mailing list to increase your chances of a response.
Increasing the number of open channels of communication also increases the burden of monitoring those channels to ensure that nothing goes missing. Therefore, trying to engage in two places will likely increase the chance of something going missing, rather than decreasing. This is likely why Nataliia has asked that feedback be given in a single location, so that she can be sure that she can see any feedback or questions that are given. I would encourage you to try engaging on Meta, as Nataliia suggests, rather than here, to reduce the chances that something goes missing or ignored.
Thanks, Dan
Hi Dan,
As is evidenced by this very discussion, people read and discuss matters on this list. Those who prefer a lower volume of communication can subscribe to the Announce list instead.
Pine
On Jul 27, 2016 08:46, "Dan Garry" dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Pine,
On 27 July 2016 at 08:25, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on
Meta. I
would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the Board can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the governance review.
If I'm understanding, you're saying that you've previously left questions on Meta which ended up going unanswered, and therefore you'd prefer to ask questions on this mailing list to increase your chances of a response.
Increasing the number of open channels of communication also increases the burden of monitoring those channels to ensure that nothing goes missing. Therefore, trying to engage in two places will likely increase the chance of something going missing, rather than decreasing. This is likely why Nataliia has asked that feedback be given in a single location, so that she can be sure that she can see any feedback or questions that are given. I would encourage you to try engaging on Meta, as Nataliia suggests, rather than here, to reduce the chances that something goes missing or ignored.
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery 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
Hi Pine, there is a simple practical thing I would like to ask you to accept: Not everyone is online 24/7. Even board members aren’t. People have to work, to sleep and to live. While you pick and read only topics of your interest, you assume that my colleagues on the board and I read and follow each thread to answer questions wherever and whenever they arise. That just doesn’t work. Reading mail threads asynchronously makes it really hard and regarding to the frequency and length probably impossible to follow up with discussions in a meaningful way. Nat’s idea to leave your ideas, suggestions, question on that meta-page is the only feasible way to give the BGC, other board members and the community a chance to collect, read, compare, consider and answer in a structured way.
Alice.
Am 27.07.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Hi Dan,
As is evidenced by this very discussion, people read and discuss matters on this list. Those who prefer a lower volume of communication can subscribe to the Announce list instead.
Pine
On Jul 27, 2016 08:46, "Dan Garry" dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Pine,
On 27 July 2016 at 08:25, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on
Meta. I
would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the Board can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the governance review.
If I'm understanding, you're saying that you've previously left questions on Meta which ended up going unanswered, and therefore you'd prefer to ask questions on this mailing list to increase your chances of a response.
Increasing the number of open channels of communication also increases the burden of monitoring those channels to ensure that nothing goes missing. Therefore, trying to engage in two places will likely increase the chance of something going missing, rather than decreasing. This is likely why Nataliia has asked that feedback be given in a single location, so that she can be sure that she can see any feedback or questions that are given. I would encourage you to try engaging on Meta, as Nataliia suggests, rather than here, to reduce the chances that something goes missing or ignored.
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery 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
[[m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_structure https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_structure&action=edit&redlink=1 ]]
Wiki pages are certainly better for long-term organization of discussions. They are harder for a few voices to dominate; they can be refactored and summarized, and skimmed to find discussions among new voices. Our translation tools work directly on meta.
A simple mail-to-wiki script could be nice, adding a link from wiki pages to public email/forum threads. But one doesn't exist now.
Pine, you are one of the most active posters to this list, by count and volume; clearly you like mail. Not everyone does; some are put off by the power law distribution of posters here. Nat's suggestion is reasonable; why not try it and see how it works. Some discussions about board composition will inevitably occur here; if you see ones that you think are relevant, you can help ensure they are summarized on that page.
Sam
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Pine,
On 27 July 2016 at 08:25, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on
Meta. I
would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the Board can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the governance review.
If I'm understanding, you're saying that you've previously left questions on Meta which ended up going unanswered, and therefore you'd prefer to ask questions on this mailing list to increase your chances of a response.
Increasing the number of open channels of communication also increases the burden of monitoring those channels to ensure that nothing goes missing. Therefore, trying to engage in two places will likely increase the chance of something going missing, rather than decreasing. This is likely why Nataliia has asked that feedback be given in a single location, so that she can be sure that she can see any feedback or questions that are given. I would encourage you to try engaging on Meta, as Nataliia suggests, rather than here, to reduce the chances that something goes missing or ignored.
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery 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
I am happy to read Pine's emails. A mailing list is useful to bring attention to specific issues as one can only watch a certain percentage of wikipedia / meta / etc.
J
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
[[m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_structure < https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
]]
Wiki pages are certainly better for long-term organization of discussions. They are harder for a few voices to dominate; they can be refactored and summarized, and skimmed to find discussions among new voices. Our translation tools work directly on meta.
A simple mail-to-wiki script could be nice, adding a link from wiki pages to public email/forum threads. But one doesn't exist now.
Pine, you are one of the most active posters to this list, by count and volume; clearly you like mail. Not everyone does; some are put off by the power law distribution of posters here. Nat's suggestion is reasonable; why not try it and see how it works. Some discussions about board composition will inevitably occur here; if you see ones that you think are relevant, you can help ensure they are summarized on that page.
Sam
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Dan Garry dgarry@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Pine,
On 27 July 2016 at 08:25, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with you. The Board and Lila ignored some inquiries that I made on Meta. Discussions on this mailing list seem to attract at least as much good-faith participation as discussions on
Meta. I
would suggest that inquiries could be made in either venue, and the
Board
can simply acknowledge and collect them for action during the
governance
review.
If I'm understanding, you're saying that you've previously left questions on Meta which ended up going unanswered, and therefore you'd prefer to
ask
questions on this mailing list to increase your chances of a response.
Increasing the number of open channels of communication also increases
the
burden of monitoring those channels to ensure that nothing goes missing. Therefore, trying to engage in two places will likely increase the chance of something going missing, rather than decreasing. This is likely why Nataliia has asked that feedback be given in a single location, so that
she
can be sure that she can see any feedback or questions that are given. I would encourage you to try engaging on Meta, as Nataliia suggests, rather than here, to reduce the chances that something goes missing or ignored.
Thanks, Dan
-- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery 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
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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