I couldn't think of an appropriate response, so here's some pandas doing stuff: http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/04/20/304915015/google-frec...
But, in seriousness, James: the Foundation is not going to be active on stuff like pushing for community broadband. It's not within even the broad remit of the Foundation. With this particular one, I'm guessing we'd gain approximately half an editor per million dollars WMF invested in advocacy efforts. Community broadband is a noble cause, and there are many organizations fighting for it. We aren't one of them. We shouldn't be one of them. The more you push for the WMF to become a broad-based advocacy group targeting issues you care about (many of which I also care about,) and the more often you are told by more people 'this isn't within our remit,' the less likely future posts of yours that may have really solid points in them are to be taken seriously.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
http://stopthecap.com/2014/01/30/anti-community-broadband-bill-introduced-in...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/alec-tech-and-the-telecom_b_169...
Is the Foundation active on this issue? My question to the advocacy_advisors mailing list was not approved by the moderator, but after a few days now I don't have any reason that it's not a legitimate question. Was there any discussion about whether that list should be moderated?
Does the Foundation want to base advocacy efforts on issues that can help a declining number of volunteers instead of the no longer extant exponentially growing number of volunteers?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe