Guys, I think the Egypt bashing (whether justified or not) has gotten rather unproductive. Do any of the people who are concerned about this have any practical suggestions to allay your concerns? -Robert Rohde On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Shutting down criticism of Wikimania Egypt is certainly the right solution. A practical suggestion would be to have the foundation pull out of Wikimania Egypt and conduct it in a more appropriate venue, even if it means delaying the conference date. -Dan On Feb 23, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:

Il giorno 23/feb/08, alle ore 22:59, Florence Devouard ha scritto: Yep, but no one seems to feel deep embarassment for all of our Queer Wikipedians. Never felt in the past, it seems (this problem should have been evaluated BEFORE the choose of Alexandria). Nice, hu? I think that - to remain FACTUAL - using always the "you're making Wikimedia embarassing" is a bit too much "routine". Or Nazis? Or killers? Or pedophile? Or rapers? What matters is only "freedom, transparency, collaboration, neutrality"? ONLY? Of course. Pizza attacks in Italy. Baguette War in France. Sushi terrorism in Japan. A fall from the stairs in my house. Doesn't this phrase sound cliché demagogic even to you, Florence? Translations: "If you don't agree with us Board, just take your kick in the ass, and go away. But thanks for writing some articles on wiki." Cheers, Claudio / Gatto Nero

You're right. It should not matter where we come from, what religion we are, or our sexual orientation. But it does. Ignoring that does nothing, and mistaking concern for nation-bashing is troubling. As for staying factual, this entire discussion has been remarkably factual, complete with citations and links provided. But making efforts not to offend other wikipedians? I fail to see how historical, factual events should offend other Wikipedians. I'll drop the issue on one final note: There's a significant difference between being edgy and being reckless. There's a significant difference between assuming a margin of risk that naturally exists, and refusing to confront concerns. There's a significant difference between "shit happens" and failure to plan. -Dan On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:

I second that, It seems that there has been some confusion with the purpose of this panlist, which is to engender positive discussion and create change and policy to be implemented within wikimedia, not poke fun or joke about matters which are not only inappropriate, but hurtful and unfair. This list was created for a set of specific reasons, and flooding the panlists inboxes with worthless ideas and prejudiced speech is not one of them. Carefully construct your responses; this is not a blog, bring constructive comments that you can back up with more than hearsay. How are we supposed to induce positive change when so many ill-founded ideas and opinions are all circling around the same topics? Perhaps I'm being ignorant in my view for the wikimedia project or perhaps my ignorance just extends to the purpose of this list, but I thought that those qualified enough to post on the mailing list would at least offer more than what they've heard from a friend or read in an article or two. Best, Aki On Feb 23, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/02/2008, Florence Devouard wrote: governments are. matter whether we As far as I know, where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion doesn't matter to us. Wikimedia has no restrictions on who can edit based on any group that they belong to. There hasn't been any suggestion that this should or will change. The concern is that there are places in the world which, due to the national government it falls under, care about where we come from, our sexual orientation or our religion (or lack thereof). - -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Florence: I'm going to say it one last time: please do not dismiss potential concerns simply because we're "Neutral." Many people have claimed neutrality before and it's burned them. Belgium before World War II being a notable example. To be perfectly honest, I doubt that any of the non-Western governments give a crap about NPOV. You can say "But it's educational and we don't decide editorially what to put in en.wiki" until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the way it's perceived. And, unfortunately, it currently looks to portions of the Islamic world that the WMF is dismissing complaints made due to a difference in religious ideology. Just imagine the PR from the headlines "Wikimania contributors gunned down by Islamic extremists." Now, I'm not wishing this on anyone, nor do I hope we ever have to discuss the fallout from such a situation, but there are places in the world where the actions taken by some people can create headlines such as this. The board would be wise to properly investigate the security situation in Egypt or potentially face the risk of having done nothing and then having to cope with the fallout because of that. I believe most Wikimedians would be fine with a canceled, postponed or relocated Wikimania if it meant they'd all be a bit safer. For the community, Chad On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Florence. -Dan On Feb 23, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:

Chad, Not even that bad of a scenario, what about waking up to the New York Times headline: "Egypt Bans Wikipedia Convention Over Muhammad Pics Controversy"? What happens then to the various plane tickets, hotel reservations, scholarships given out, etc? What about the press furor that will come over that? Or what if it's "Egypt Police Arrest Wikipedia Convention Gays?" How do we assist the arrested wikimanians? Do we condemn the actions? How do we protect the remaining Wikimanians in that event? Or "Wikipedia Convention in Egypt Marked by Protests Against Jews"? What are the contingency plans? What is the press response? What are the answers to any of dozens of important questions that need to be asked about these very real potential threats? These are important concerns that need to be discussed and should not be dismissed as anti-egyptian rhetoric, or dealt with by threats of moderation. This is the signal that's being lost in idle noise about theoretical Wikimania Icelands. More importantly, we shouldn't be condemned for being concerned with the safety of our fellow Wikimedians instead of blase dismissals. This is the debate we tried to have months ago during the Wikimania bid, and it was ignored by the Alexandria team, just as it's been ignored now. I want to know: Has the Alexandria team thought about the possibility of these events? What actions do they intend to take? What risk do they think there is of these events happening? What do they have to say about the US, UK, and Australian government's travel advisories about Wikimania? Have they made plans already for police protection from protestors? If not, what plans have they made? These (and more) are questions that I want to see answered by whoever is in charge of setting up Wikimania. -Dan PS: for those of you who have problems with my views on this topic, consider actually discussing them with me privately. "Tattling" went out of style in grade school. On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Chad wrote:

For unclear reasons my reply below was blocked. I am thus re-sending it. Mark Williamson wrote: Thank you for being realistic At some point a decision has to be made, and we can't afford to look back on the decision with regrets. We can't build a good conference if the organizers' time is so taken up by rear-guard actions. The Toronto people could not have been very happy when Boston won with a late bid. The Turin people were upset when they lost to Taipei. I personally favour Buenos Aires for 2009, but I'm not going to make an issue of it if another city gets that Wikimania. Ec

I agree with Gatto Nero that this is an issue. As a gay man, this all concerns me very much. The way that peoples' concerns have been pushed aside is inappropriate at best. Peoples' concerns should be addressed in a respectful way. If it is not possible or a reasonable suggestion anymore to change the venue, people will understand this, IF and WHEN you show some care for their safety and address it in detail. Mark On 26/02/2008, Gatto Nero <gattonero(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Meeting is saturday. But to avoid any disappointment Dan... I doubt very much that any sort of announcement will happen in the subsequent week. Here is why. As part of our growth, we must try to be careful to identify what is the role of the board, and what is the role of the ED. And to convey the difference to the community. I'd say that it is within the role of the board to say "we want a Wikimania every year. This should be a meeting of roughly 300-400 people, mostly wikimedians; an opportunity to participants to meet face to face and share experiences, have fun, and bond. Also an opportunity to push certain agendas, meet with the press, expand the fan circle, hear big leaders in the free movement, in the wiki world, in the educational system etc... Should propose scholarship. Should be in various places around the world. As much as possible, should be a cost free even for the WMF." Then, the role of the ED is to make sure that this happens. It is her job to ensure that the event is successful, financially sound... and probably that security of participants is taken care of. Right now, two situations may happen. The ED herself might wonder if there might be problems because of hersay, mails on the list, press, private emails, whatever... Or the board might wonder if there might be problems. If the board thinks there might be problems, the wise thing to do is for the board to ask the ED to conduct a study, analyze the risks given the latest circonstances, evaluate which steps may be followed to balance the risk if there is one, do contingency planning, and estimate the consequences of cancelling or moving the event elsewhere. Naturally, the analysis is not fully conducted by Sue, but done with the help of many parties. Then, the ED will present her conclusions to the board, and provide some recommandations. Based on the ED recommandations, the board may either decide to delegate full authority to Sue to make the decision herself, or the board will take a decision *with* Sue. So, what I plan to do Saturday is to ask the board whether they consider new circonstances are worth requesting a more straightforward study of the situation and steps to ensure security. The board can either dismiss the issue I raise, or agree to ask for a recommandation from Sue. THEN, it will be up to Sue to act. And I doubt she will make any suggestion in 2-3 days. I'll forward this email to the board :-) Thanks Ant Dan Rosenthal wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26/02/2008, Claudio Mastroianni wrote: I had taken the 'new circumstances' that Florence talked about to refer to the images of Muhammad's face, rather than the issues relating to the safety of homosexuals or women... [Yes, those latter issues were foreseeable.] - -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Florence, I guess I wasn't clear with what I was saying, because what you're describing is exactly what I was talking about. The board meets this saturday. Hypothetically, they vote for Sue to investigate. I was referring to the board announcing to this list that they have voted for Sue to investigate. Obviously, such an investigation would take time. Typically you or someone else makes an announcement shortly after a board meeting as to what was discussed at the board meeting. So hypothetically, the meeting is Sat. and then say Wed. someone posts to this list what the results of that meeting were (for everything, not just Wikimania, but all issues the board is going to discuss this weekend). Does that make more sense? -Dan On Feb 26, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: I did killfile this thread, as it any utility it had as a constructive discussion had long since ended. Many of the lingering posts were, frankly, offensive. If you'd like to address the criteria for selecting the Wikimania venue, please bring it up constructively in a separate thread, preferably on wikimania-l. As Ray says, condemning a decision made well in the past is, if anything, counterproductive to the current team's organization efforts. Austin

On 26/02/2008, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote: And if the killfile was legitimate, why didn't you tell anyone until 15 hours after you did it? Quite a few list regulars were involved, it seems like basic respect to tell them that you did this. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Claudio Mastroianni <gattonero(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is a baseless insinuation. As Austin already pointed out somewhere else, we are not appointed by the board and we are not hear to defend the board from criticism. Foundation-l is a open forum, where everyone, including the board and its critics can utter their opinion. Our job is to moderate the discussion when it gets offtopic or incivil. Michael

I have to agree, it seems a broad net is being cast here for trolls. Saying that Egypt may be / is unsafe for LGBTQQA populations is not trolling. Saying it over and over is not necessarily trolling if one genuinely feels one is being ignored. If you feel your voice is being heard, but you say it over and over anyhow, that would certainly be trolling after a point, but I am going to assume good faith (although in real life, I often see my fellow gay men provoke drama seemingly on purpose, we are all Wikimedians and I would have to hope that we would adhere to a higher standard of conduct here), and guess that people who repeat themselves and their arguments are feeling that they have not been heard. As citizens of our countries, LGBTQ people (not Questioning or Allies, at least not usually I would think) are used to being treated like second-class citizens in many ways. What ways, depends on the country: 1 (worst) In <s>some</s>many countries, those of us who are sexually active, whether or not it is within a committed relationship, are actively or passively sought out and imprisioned or put to death by the very governments that are supposed to protect our rights. 2 In <s>some</s>most countries, including those with some of the highest rates of HIV and STIs in the entire world, health programs and promotions pretend that we do not exist. This is not only irresponsible in a public health arena where bisexual men who are active MSMs may, have, and will continue to spread infection to women and the "heterosexual community", but it is against the rights of the LGBTQ population to receive equal treatment by their governments. 3 In almost every country on this planet, it is legal for our employers to fire us, and for prospective employers to decide not to hire us because of our sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people assume that this would apply mostly to people who are "obvious", or who "shout it out", but even people who are careful and discreet may be, have been, and will be fired over simple rumors with no legal or other recourse. 4 Only a handful of countries worldwide allow same-sex couples to get the same benefits (tax breaks, insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, coparenting, property rights) as opposite-sex couples. That we should be able to marry any one legal adult we want, with full informed consent from both parties, is a fundamental human right. 5 In many countries, we can be imprisoned for perceived behaviors such as a glance, hitting on someone, or flirting, although this is rarely written into the legal code. 6 In many countries, the majority heterosexual community has formed mobs and committed various acts of violence against members of our communities while the government turns a blind eye or even encourages it. Again, public safety should cover all individuals, not just heterosexual and cisgendered individuals. Public safety is a basic right that governments are to provide to all citizens on an equal basis, as much as possible. 7 Our rights have only universally been protected historically in communities where we form the majority or a very significantly large minority, such as the American state of Vermont, the cities of West Hollywood, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, West Palm Beach, and the Québecois city of Montréal. Now, in this organization, the Wikimedia foundation, we have large numbers. We are significant numerically, not just as human beings. If you go to the page on Meta that lists which Wikimedians are GLBTQQA, you will find that some of your most respected Wikimedians are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, and allied. These people have had employment positions within the Foundation itself, if there haven't been any on the board. I am not going to name names as I personally believe that to be disrespectful even though we are talking about "out" people here, I will leave it to you to check for yourself who our Queer Wikimedians are, or for them to come out of the woodwork to discuss it here. Here, Gatto Nero, one of the most respected Italian Wikimedians, has come forward to stand up for our rights. I have found many people in this thread who said they were gay, that I didn't know to be gay. It has come as a shock to us that such a decision as the one about the location of this Wikimania could be passed down with such little consideration of our safety. As I have said, this seems unlikely to change now, and as we say in my family there is no use crying over spilt milk. That does not mean that we can't have a useful dialogue. In fact, that is something we MUST do if we want to keep the respect of our GLBTQQA Wikimedians (myself included, and I would hope that most Wikimedians include themselves in the Allies category represented by the "A" - it is important to recognize that statistically, nearly every person on this planet has a friend or family member who is attracted primarily to same-gendered individuals, no matter what culture they belong to). The dialog should use an outline something like this: 1) Is Al-Iskandariyya safe for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, and allied Wikimedians? a) Will they be safe if they "don't flaunt it"? i) Is the suggestion that they are flaunting it disrespectful? (answer is yes) ii) Is it reasonable to ask that people pretend to be someone they are not so that they may attend this conference? b) How can we ensure that GLBTQQA participants are safe, happy, and allowed to be themselves in the conference and in the city? i) Are there any behaviors in which they will be unable to engage that they could reasonably be allowed to engage in in their home countries related to their sexual orientation? ii) What are some possible warnings that should be circulated to GLBTQQA individuals who plan on attending? 2) What are some issues with the planning process that we must address before next year? a) Planning process problems and solutions b) Selection process problems and solutions 3) How can we make sure that GLBTQQA Wikimedians are not just "tolerated", but accepted and welcomed with open arms, and protected as they deserve as human beings at conferences, and all other Wikimedia-related events and in every Wikimedia arena? 4) Review who within our organization identifies as other than heterosexual and cisgendered, and what the probable consequences would be if we were to lose them from the organization. This would be to demonstrate that GLBTQQA Wikimedians form a very important part of this organization and that we cannot operate reasonably without them on any level. 5) How do GLBTQQA persons relate to our mission of knowledge? How are the fundamental rights to knowledge different from and similar to the fundamental rights to being ourselves? a) The right to knowledge differs from the right to self expression and the right to safety and liberty... b) The rights are similar in that... 6) How are the struggles of the WMF for disemination of knowledge similar to the struggles of GLBTQQA individuals and groups around the world for recognition as human beings, as well as for the struggles of other subordinate groups around the world for similar recognition (women in patriarchal societies, African Americans in the US, Ainu in Northern Japan, minorities in Spain, pretos in Brazil, Copts in post-Conquest Egypt, Aboriginal Australians in Australia... one from each continent there) 7) Would it be a good idea to have some sort of GLBTQQA advisory committee within the framework of the foundation? Even having a single individual who identifies as LGBTQ to be able to observe all foundation decisions and to comment when they feel the discussion is relevant to our community would be sufficient. If we do this, similar problems could be avoided in the future. Mark On 27/02/2008, Gatto Nero &lt;gattonero(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

You're assuming that - I am probably the biggest proponent of cultural relativism on this list when it comes to anything, even polygamy, cannibalism, female circumcision, and more - as long as nobody is infringing upon anybody else's fundamental human right, that to life. I am a believer in both cultural relativism and human rights. That's a difficult balance to strike. But needless to say, while I think we should certainly not be telling Egyptians how to live or even how to run their government, I do not think we should be saying "It's okay that they are infringing upon peoples' human rights because that is part of their culture". Infringing upon human rights is not part of any human culture. My basis for this idea is the following: in every large human culture, there are people who believe in the modern concept of human rights. These people are not necessarily westernized, in fact they are often entirely indigenous movements, such as some of those advocating an end to forced female circumcision (= requiring consent of girls and women to perform the ritual, something that is overlooked in certain cultures where it is present). Many GLBT rights groups are partly indigenous movements as well. In fact, the Conference of African Lesbians met today in Mozambique. Mark On 28/02/2008, Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Il giorno 29/feb/08, alle ore 08:30, phoebe ayers ha scritto: Let me understand: we - gays, lesbians, women "with immoral behaviours" should pay the fee for something YOU - the Board, the Wikimania Committee, the Whatever - made in the past? Who choose Taipei last years? You knew there would have been Visa problems. It's not our fault. Oh, come on. Don't try to fool us (again). This choice has obviously some political reasons too, just like Taipei last year ("Freedom in place where freedom doesn't exist"). Again: whatever if you're gay/lesbian/woman/whatever, just don't come. And thanks for the contributions,cheers. What? "Personally discriminated"? That's offensive: trying to "invert" the problem, accusing the complainers.

Also, you guys (I mean the foundation members) have been handling all this pretty badly. It should have been obvious from the moment alexandria was chosen and a huge row erupted over gay safety in egypt that this was an issue that would need continuing attention -- as in, you need to honestly understand people's concerns* and look for practical solutions. A straightforward knowledge base mapping out egyptian society, religion, politics and culture would be a good place to start. Seriously. Do you not understand why swatjester's pissed off? There are protesters in s. egypt decrying "the jews". If we had a better understanding of egyptian culture, someone could say to him "look, those protesters are at a conservative university, they don't represent broader egyptian society". (Or, conversely, maybe they do. I don't know because nobody's researching.) There's a major vacuum here that needs to be filled with knowledge and advice. Basically, pull your socks up, get to work, and stop worrying about the way threads play out on a bloody mailing list. This is a problem you have to fix with real actions, not debate. Here's a recent in depth article about youth culture and islam in egypt. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/middleeast/17youth.html?scp=17&… It contains about 100 times more light than this discussion, and everyone should read it. * As a semi-aspie, I do badly at conferences for other reasons and won't be going -- so I don't share any /practical/ concerns. But I'm also bi and ethnically jewish On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Ben Yates &lt;ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com

Oops. And also, now that I've had a chance to sit and think about it, florence actually seems to already be doing pretty much all the right things, so my message was a little redundant. Egg, face, etc. On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Florence Devouard &lt;Anthere9(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: -- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Ben Yates &lt;ben.louis.yates(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yeah, that was me, not Ant, and that's a correct reading Ben. Just to be clear I'm not trying to speak on behalf of the foundation, wikimania jury past, present or future, organizers past, present or future, etc. etc. etc. Just me. (I think opinions are pretty varied within all these groups). Ben is also right that the problems with this or any other location won't go away through posts on a mail list -- we need good information and good suggestions for the future. Also thanks Lars for sending an eloquent message that pretty much sums up what I was trying to say. -- phoebe, who considers herself a member of the Immoral Women delegation to future conferences

Are you serious? Would Sudan (visa free for Egyptians) or Ethiopia (visa on arrival) be better? I am not sure that citizens of the fist world countries really appreciate what does it mean to be able to enter most of the countries without visa. Not that I am defending the decision to host Wikimania in Alexandria, and not that I am planning to go there myself (even though I could get visa on arrival). I actually think that the thread became pointless a long time ago. If the point is to select the next location carefully, then we should discuss the next location. Cheers, Yaroslav

Hello, Lars Aronsson wrote: Thanks Lars for writing down and remembering us the really important issues. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

Mark Williamson wrote: If non-Western people have objections to the choice of venue, they can speak for themselves. You might have missed it, but the era of colonialism is over; Americans and Italians do not speak for non-Westerners. Therefore, when I hear objections from Westerners, I interpret them as "objections from Westerners". -Mark

On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Puerto Rico? Various former Spannish colonies acquired at one point? -- geni

On 3/1/08, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Lessee, how many states were there in the compact during the articles of confederation? Never acquired any territories, no-no (won't go to rehab, no-no...) Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Contrary to what some meanies here have said, I don't presume to speak for anyone else. But based on my own experience, I am guessing that the over 2millon american indians whose ancestors have inhabited this country for over 10000 years would be extremely offended by your fatally erroneous statement. The US has been a colonial state from the beginning, I will not deny that and neither should you. On 01/03/2008, Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

You guys seriously don't know when to stop. Start a new topic that's actually relevant, because this one's been added to the killfile. Austin On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Nathan &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Dear Philippe, dear all First, I wish to emphasise that no individual contributor was moderated. The thread was "killfiled" which means, that all responses to the thread, be they from Jimbo, from you or myself are first held for moderation, just due to being responses to a thread. This inconvenience is necessary, as it is the only measure to stop a off-topic / flame-war *thread* instead of a single person. Even if your post had been "Stop answering this thread, it is off-topic", it would have been held for moderation. I agree with you, however, on two counts: a) We should have communicated better about this and we should have made it clear that the moderation is not directed against particular subscribers. Austin already apologised for his delay in communicating it and I join him in doing so. We will strive to do better. b) There are messages to this thread currently in the moderation queue, which have neither been approved nor rejected. The reasons are this is the following: Obviously, Austin's reason why he killfiled the thread (and I agree with his decision, fwiw) was that he wanted to put an end to the discussion. Now, if we approved *some* messages to the thread (i.e. all the messages from the very reputable contributors, such as you, Anthere and many others) but rejected others, this would rightly be seen as censorship. That's why I (and I presume Austin's reasoning is similar, though I can't guarantee) did not approve any of the messages. An alternative might be to alter the "killfile rule", so that messages to the killfiled thread are not simply held for approval but automatically rejected. However, the software, as far as I can see, does not allow for specific rejection messages. So, you would have just gotten an email "Your message was rejected by the list administrator", which would have been rather offensive as well. My proposed solution for now is that next time we feel it necessary to killfile a thread, we will do the following: Post a clear notice to foundation-l which reads "Thread XYZ has been killfiled due to reasons ABC, all replies to the killfiled threads will be autorejected" and implement an auto-rejection system afterwards. I concur that the situation as is now (messages held up in the queue "for ever") is insatisfactory. Would this solution find your approval and the approval of the other subscribers? Michael On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette &lt;philippebeaudette(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Oldak Quill &lt;oldakquill(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: For some reason, Dan's e-mails were being filed as spam, so I apologize for not replying him directly. Foundation-l administrative actions are usually done quietly, and for the most part nobody notices. If you've just made some inflammatory comments and suddenly find that your posts are taking an hour or two to make it to the list, it's because we've flagged you for moderation and are reviewing your posts before allowing them through. It's in this way that we try to enforce some semblance of civil discussion, and many have said that we still don't do enough. productive. These threads are largely what has led Foundation officials to decry this list as "useless" or even "crap." That Florence continued to indulge certain posts with a response did not affect my judgment that this particular thread had outlived its usefulness and, though certain points were worthy of attention, should have been brought up in a different way and/or in a different medium. It had absolutely nothing to do with certain posts being critical of the Board or anyone else, because, to be frank, it's not my job to act in their interests here. I'm not going to address issues of "legitimacy" or "censorship," but I will say that I normally do give notice of a killed thread, which happens perhaps once a month. I didn't do that here, simply because I forgot, and I apologize for the confusion that caused. Austin

And you had better hope that someone feels your input is worth something, or else your moderated e-mails will be ignored, no matter how insightful you think they may be. I speak from experience too =) On 26/02/2008, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Also, because this apparently wasn't clear to some, it's only that specific thread with that specific subject line that was put on automatic moderation. No individual person, Ray included, was moderated for their participation. Austin