I could see the Foundation making reasonable preparations against what may be inevitable - backing up servers, off-site contingencies, etc - but I do not see this as an issue where the WMF should be a leader in driving influence. The issue of a general strike is a generalized protest against.... <something/someone/some set of policies>. I see this as somewhat different from the SOPA/PIPA issue in that there is no clear and delineated threat to the WMF's existence - there is certainly a danger in the form of troubling policy, and I personally am gravely concerned that such a threat to the WMF's existence may materialize, but I don't yet see an immediate single incident/issue/law/case that the WMF should take a leadership role in advocacy against.
I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, however.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike?
https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/825395993789157376
https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/825403294667436033
I know this is an unusual question, but when is the last time that the
U.S.
judiciary has deployed Federal Marshals against its own executive branch?
federal-judge-sends-u-s-
marshals-to-prevent-trump-from-enforcing-muslim-ban/
Best regards, Jim Salsman
I'm alright with the WMF taking a position on issues when they're likely to have a serious impact on the core mission of Wikimedia.
I fail to see how this is one of those things. The WMF is not a political advocacy organization.
Todd _______________________________________________ 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