Hoi, What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally wrong with the notions pandered. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 January 2017 at 18:54, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made particularly good?
Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to contribute to the WMF strategic planning process? If so, by all means say so explicitly.
"Rogol"
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en
wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community. What community? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
understanding
problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones
in
simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
between
members of the community with an interest in and experience of
software
issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management
developing
the
software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
do.
Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what
to
build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
decided
upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing
bright
ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
some
ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at
the
strategic level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early
consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work
satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice. Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the
projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics,
...
.
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would
also
require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
not a
challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing
is
not
like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
achieved
*the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll
wait
to
hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What
has
changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be
different
this year?
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go
so
far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap
and
it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently
refused
to
even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter?
I
can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.
- The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster 2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it
too
difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is
embarrased
to
admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it
knows
the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a
wide
range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one?
What
would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other
end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help
with
the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements;
to
plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having
the
ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no
desire
to
expose its view of those problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking
or
even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my
real
name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a
fictional
wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically
in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not
for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should
always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in
some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue
is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is
attributed
by
Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson
for
management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more,
earlier
and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable
to
the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I guess the question is was this a request for input on what
the
community > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
> was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do
X,
Y,
and
Z. > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears
the
second > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give
you
our
> opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-) > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
> 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was
carrying
out.
> my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to
the
WM
> movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are
few
and
far > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he
will
continue
> on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to
put
food
on
> the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
> movement will pick him up. > > Best > James > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell < astillwell@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > > > Anna, > > > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can
confirm
I
did
> > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my
summary
was
> > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their > > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do
not
think
> the > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on > > this > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause"
that
> > necessitates > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
> degree > > is > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. > > > > > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
Sad!). > > > > > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
> make > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ, > or > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense.
It's
> worthwhile > > to > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more
on
a
scale > > that > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something
specific
being
> asked > > of > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. > > > > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to
give
them
the > > time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question,
or
a
> discussion > > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented,
who
all
seemed > > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team
get
back
to
> them > > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully
and
legally > > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future
work.
> > > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
is > > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like
I've
not
made > > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help? > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of
Q3,
if
you'd > > > like. > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out. > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth < peteforsyth@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Anna, > > >>> > > >>> Pete, > > >> > > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize
what
I
think > I > > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard,
and
if
full > > >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers
may
not
be > > >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that
about
right?
> > >>> > > >> > > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I
mean.
Thanks.
> > >> > > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“This
> > >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are
involved.
> > >> Sometimes > > >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we
don’t
know
> > whether > > >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the
facts.
The
> truth > > >> is > > >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial
communication
> that > > >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.” > > >> > > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of
assumptions
are
being > > >> made. > > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
known > > once > > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations > > you > > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
> law > > >> and > > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > > >> > > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like
extra
to
me.
I > > >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my
personal
choice.
> > >> > > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be
a
reasonable > > >> request to grant them. > > >> > > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in > > >> > > >>> tension with > > >>> another one: > > >>> > > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a
rare
and
> > important > > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or
sustain
are
> > complex, > > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing
list
> > >>> participants. > > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm > > in a > > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers
and
staff)
> > would > > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a
little
weight
> > behind > > >>> an > > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain. > > >>> > > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
> generate > > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited
about
ORES
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_ Evaluation_Service> > > >> and > > >> > > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs,
and
New
> > Readers. > > >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to
see
the
> > >> interactive > > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > > >> > > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they
needed
to
> pause, > > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's
aim
during > > this > > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable
state.”
> > >> > > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible
today
may
not
be > > >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
> > moved > > >>> on by then. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about
enthusiasm
for
> > >> software. > > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life
of a
week,
> > >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless,
your
point
> > still > > >> stands. > > >> > > >> -Pete > > >>> -- > > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > >>> > > >>> /a > > >> [[User:Annaproject]] > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell < > > astillwell@wikimedia.org > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. > > >>>> > > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a
period
where > > his > > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until
his
> [her/they] > > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care
of
> business." > > >>>> > > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
> In > > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we
all
face
> > >>>> > > >>> constraints. > > >>> > > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every
now
and
> then, > > >>>> > > >>> there > > >>> > > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
> > meets > > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll
continue
to
work
on > > >>>> > > >>> this. > > >>> > > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful
practice"
nor
did > > >>>> > > >>> anyone > > >>> > > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. > > >>>> > > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating > in > > >>>> > > >>> this > > >>> > > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a
bit
of
time
> and > > >>>> > > >>> allow > > >>> > > >>>> for one person to return to work? > > >>>> > > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? > > >>>> > > >>>> Warmly, > > >>>> /a > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < > > >>>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de > > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> […] > > >>>>>> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is
temporary.
> > I’ve > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> heard > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> them request time. I am comfortable granting that
request,
but
no > > one > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> is > > >>>> > > >>>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the
person
with
> the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> most > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen
employees
go
> > >>>>>> > > >>>>> through > > >>>> > > >>>>> considerable stress in the last years, the entire
executive
team
is > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> working > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. > We > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> want > > >>>> > > >>>>> people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations
and
> sometimes > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> that > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan
their
> > >>>>>> > > >>>>> vacations > > >>> > > >>>> well > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> in advance and may not know that something tricky will
come
up.
> Just > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> so > > >>> > > >>>> you > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> understand one bias I bring to this conversation. > > >>>>>> […] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a
use-
> > >>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
> > >>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> > >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee
should
> > >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his
work
> > >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but > > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of
business.
> > >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team > > >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one
employee,
but
> > >>>>> be backed and explainable by others. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Tim > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles
in
it." -
> > >>>> Margaret > > >>>> Fuller > > >>>> > > >>>> Anna Stillwell > > >>>> Director of Culture > > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation > > >>>> 415.806.1536 > > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>* > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > i/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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it."
Margaret > > Fuller > > > > Anna Stillwell > > Director of Culture > > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415.806.1536 > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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>
> > > > > > --
> > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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:
> 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>
>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ 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
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