[Foundation-l] (Flashback) A short (and revised) FAQ about Wikimania in Alexandria

[Mark Williamson]

Rather than being on the defensive and posting endlessly complaining
about the hostile environment on Foundation-l, you could've just
coughed up this great progress report here when someone first
questioned you, even if they were "rude" or "sniping", and we would've
saved about 10 messages.

Mark

On 19/04/2008, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>  Guillaume writes:
>
>  >  I thought the meaning was understandable with the rest of my email :
>
>
> You seemed to be implying something by "internal" that either I don't
>  fully grasp or that is flatly contradictory to what actually has been
>  occurring.
>
>
>  > I understand you have consulted various outside experts. And although
>  > I am convinced you know you have a variety of competences besides
>  > being an attorney, I am not aware of "risk assessment expert" being
>  > one of them.
>
>
> I am not characterizing myself that way.  But I do know a range of
>  security experts, both academic and professional, and have government
>  contacts as well.
>
>
>  > In March, Sue told she had asked you to have a
>  > professional firm assess the security at Wikimania. I would like to
>  > know if that was just a calming promise nobody really intends to keep,
>  > or if there is actually an assessment being conducted by a
>  > professional firm.
>
>
> It is now April. This is an ongoing process, and the security FAQ that
>  I reposted to this list was not meant to be understood as fulfillment
>  of Sue's promise, but as an interim progress report.  It was aimed
>  both at giving the Board an update on what we had learned so far (in
>  time for their April board meeting) and also providing pointers for
>  the community who might want to answer questions for themselves.  One
>  of the reasons I republished the FAQ this week was that there had been
>  so little response to its first publication (I think people were
>  preoccupied with the debate about ancient languages), and I wanted to
>  make sure we at the Foundation adequately understood whether we were
>  raising the right questions for whatever resources we invest in.  As I
>  have said, it would be a very poor investment of Foundation funds to
>  spend perhaps tens of thousands of Euros on answering the wrong
>  questions, addressing the wrong issues, or in some other way failing
>  to resolve the controversy adequately.  Instead, what I get mostly is
>  public sniping (although at least one person has been privately
>  helpful).  If you believe that foundation-l has something to offer,
>  surely that involves constructive feedback on whether we are going
>  down the right path rather than trying to interrogate us as to "a
>  calming promise that nobody really intends to keep." (I can't believe
>  you said that, actually.)
>
>  So here's the process so far.  We have talked to some risk-assessment
>  firms. They have asked what issues concern us and instructed us also
>  to use public resources (such as the state department website, which
>  lists travel advisories and alerts) as well as contact both the
>  Egyptian government and our local contacts. We have followed their
>  suggestions.  In response to the question about issues,  I have put
>  together a list of questions and concerns, based on the discussion on
>  this list, and submitted it to our local contacts -- *just as I was
>  advised to do by security experts*. This helps us refine our inquiry
>  and ensure that we continue to ask the right questions as the
>  conference date grows nearer. It also enabled me to draft an initial
>  FAQ, which I have since updated.
>
>  Why not simply hire a generalized risk assessment in March? In some
>  small part because I wasn't sure we had found the right firm yet (I
>  won't name the ones we talked to, but I will say that trying to frame
>  a risk assessment for a diverse population of largely young,
>  frequently pseudonymous attendees is not a normal query for a security
>  firm that normally provides corporate or government services for
>  easily identifiable individuals under contract), but primarily because
>  things can change quickly between March and July in terms of site
>  assessment.
>
>  So, the natural development of this inquiry, it seems to me, is to do
>  just what I have been doing -- continuing to seek information from a
>  variety of sources and uncovering the depth and range of concerns.
>  I've received a small amount of helpful feedback here, but less than I
>  would prefer. At some point, assuming I get useful feedback about
>  community concerns, it should be easier to identify the precise issues
>  we could use to hire the right outside security firm for site and
>  event risk assessment.
>
>  My impression is that it's so easy to snipe with one-liners here that
>  the culture of foundation-l -- including the inevitable suggestion of
>  dishonesty (thank you, Guillaume!) -- somehow prefers that mode of
>  discourse. Plus, I get the impression that some people don't think
>  there's really an inquiry unless there has been an Inquisition.
>
>
>
>  --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>