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-fre…
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://stopthecap.com/2014/01/30/anti-community-broadband-bill-introduced-i…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/alec-tech-and-the-telecom_b_16…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>