Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Laurentius]

At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
to contact you?

Laurentius

Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
> Dear all,
> 
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the 
> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a 
> place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user 
> groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to 
> other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide 
> events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across 
> our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide 
> activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, 
> or other communications from affiliates.
> 
> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the 
> mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to 
> request additional spots if needed.
> 
> Please find a bit more information on Meta: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>  
> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Carlos




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Chris Keating]

Since October 27th there have been 3 threads, all started by the same
person, with a total of 5 posts .

None of which said anything at all confidential. :)

Chris

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Laurentius 
wrote:

> At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
> If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
> to contact you?
>
> Laurentius
>
> Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> > launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> > place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
> > groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
> > other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
> > events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
> > our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
> > activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts,
> > or other communications from affiliates.
> >
> > Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
> > mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
> > request additional spots if needed.
> >
> > Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> > and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carlos
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gnangarra]

appologies, yeah its the Affcom list not the Affiliates list, multiple
email from you on both this morning didnt notice the email address change
so my appologies again

On 4 November 2015 at 07:33, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not
> intentional.
>
> Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to
> AffCom?
>
> -greg
>
> ___
> Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
>
> > On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now
> > I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an
> affiliate
> > yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like
> to
> > cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is
> censoring
> > and cause people just to not bother with it.
> >
> > On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we
> have
> >> used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of
> >> them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly
> why
> >> this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the
> >> MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why
> WM-l
> >> is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one
> good
> >> place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking
> a
> >> bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding
> more
> >> affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again -
> speaking
> >> to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
> >>
> >> However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe
> personally
> >> we are making good progress.
> >>
> >> Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still
> >> holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought
> >> onboard.
> >>
> >> My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before
> >> we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered
> >> active.
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >>
>  On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
> >>> If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
> >>> to contact you?
> >>>
> >>> Laurentius
> >>>
> >>> Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha
> scritto:
>  Dear all,
> 
>  On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
>  launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
>  place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
>  groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
>  other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
>  events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
>  our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
>  activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report
> posts,
>  or other communications from affiliates.
> 
>  Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
>  mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
>  request additional spots if needed.
> 
>  Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>  and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Carlos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not 
intentional.

Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to AffCom?

-greg

___
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now
> I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an affiliate
> yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like to
> cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is censoring
> and cause people just to not bother with it.
> 
> On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have
>> used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of
>> them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why
>> this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the
>> MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l
>> is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good
>> place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking a
>> bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding more
>> affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again - speaking
>> to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
>> 
>> However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally
>> we are making good progress.
>> 
>> Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still
>> holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought
>> onboard.
>> 
>> My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before
>> we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered
>> active.
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> 
 On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
>>> If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
>>> to contact you?
>>> 
>>> Laurentius
>>> 
>>> Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
 Dear all,
 
 On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
 launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
 place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
 groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
 other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
 events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
 our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
 activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts,
 or other communications from affiliates.
 
 Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
 mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
 request additional spots if needed.
 
 Please find a bit more information on Meta:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
 and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
 
 Regards,
 Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gnangarra]

just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now
I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an affiliate
yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like to
cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is censoring
and cause people just to not bother with it.

On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have
> used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of
> them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why
> this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the
> MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l
> is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good
> place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking a
> bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding more
> affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again - speaking
> to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
>
> However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally
> we are making good progress.
>
> Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still
> holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought
> onboard.
>
> My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before
> we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered
> active.
>
> -greg
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius 
> wrote:
> >
> > At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
> > If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
> > to contact you?
> >
> > Laurentius
> >
> > Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> >> place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
> >> groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
> >> other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
> >> events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
> >> our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
> >> activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts,
> >> or other communications from affiliates.
> >>
> >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
> >> mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
> >> request additional spots if needed.
> >>
> >> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> >> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

My fault for reusing the subject line. :)

-greg

___
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> appologies, yeah its the Affcom list not the Affiliates list, multiple
> email from you on both this morning didnt notice the email address change
> so my appologies again
> 
> On 4 November 2015 at 07:33, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> I have not seen any moderated messages - but will check. That is not
>> intentional.
>> 
>> Perhaps the moderated message you are referring to is from your email to
>> AffCom?
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> ___
>> Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
>> 
>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>> 
>>> just an observation, I tried responding to a discussion on that list, now
>>> I've already jumped through the ID hoops and shown I'm part of an
>> affiliate
>>> yet my messages are moderated, to me that seams kind of point;less, like
>> to
>>> cause disjointed discussion, give the impression that the list is
>> censoring
>>> and cause people just to not bother with it.
>>> 
>>> On 3 November 2015 at 22:10, Gregory Varnum 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we
>> have
 used mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of
 them are not on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly
>> why
 this list is being created). As it turns out - more heard from the
 MassMessage and Signpost than this list (which - sort of speaks to why
>> WM-l
 is not a good method of reaching the affiliates). We do not have one
>> good
 place to reach all of the affiliates without this list, so it is taking
>> a
 bit to track everyone down. Basically every couple days I am finding
>> more
 affiliate leaders who have not yet heard about the list (again -
>> speaking
 to one reason why we agreed this list should be created).
 
 However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe
>> personally
 we are making good progress.
 
 Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still
 holding off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought
 onboard.
 
 My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before
 we’ve been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered
 active.
 
 -greg
 
 
>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius 
> wrote:
> 
> At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
> If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
> to contact you?
> 
> Laurentius
> 
> Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha
>> scritto:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
>> place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
>> groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
>> other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
>> events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across
>> our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide
>> activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report
>> posts,
>> or other communications from affiliates.
>> 
>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
>> mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
>> request additional spots if needed.
>> 
>> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Carlos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> GN.
>>> President Wikimedia Australia
>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>> Photo Gallery: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

We are still contacting affiliates to invite them to join. So far we have used 
mailing lists and MassMessage to contact affiliates. Since many of them are not 
on this list, it is tricky tracking them all down (partly why this list is 
being created). As it turns out - more heard from the MassMessage and Signpost 
than this list (which - sort of speaks to why WM-l is not a good method of 
reaching the affiliates). We do not have one good place to reach all of the 
affiliates without this list, so it is taking a bit to track everyone down. 
Basically every couple days I am finding more affiliate leaders who have not 
yet heard about the list (again - speaking to one reason why we agreed this 
list should be created).

However, we are steadily getting requests to join and I believe personally we 
are making good progress.

Generally, I do not yet consider it “active” and many folks are still holding 
off starting threads until there are more affiliates brought onboard.

My personal guess is that it will be at least another few weeks before we’ve 
been able to track everyone down, and the list can be considered active.

-greg


> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Laurentius  wrote:
> 
> At the end, is that mailing list currently active?
> If it is, are you asking affiliates to join, or are affiliates expected
> to contact you?
> 
> Laurentius
> 
> Il giorno ven, 16/10/2015 alle 00.04 +0300, Carlos M. Colina ha scritto:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the 
>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a 
>> place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user 
>> groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to 
>> other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide 
>> events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across 
>> our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide 
>> activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, 
>> or other communications from affiliates.
>> 
>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the 
>> mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to 
>> request additional spots if needed.
>> 
>> Please find a bit more information on Meta: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>>  
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Carlos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.

On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with
violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good
to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?


I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the 
process decided that.


Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.

I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.



I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any
argument that corroborates to your statement.



Yes, I know, you do not understand.

Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't 
like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.


Regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...

I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly
comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.

And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are
member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me."
just to border me.

On 21 October 2015 at 11:35, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not
> to me.
>
> Before participating to this thread I was really clear: please address any
> comment of the affiliated selected board seats in another place. Here we
> are speaking of the mailing list.
>
> It means that, following my coherence, I would strictly comply with the
> topic of this thread.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 21.10.2015 15:18, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>
>> This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the
>> via will not make any difference.
>>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

The spirit of the Wikimedia Movement I suppose is to be "respectful" of 
each person.


There is the freedom to be informed, there is the freedom of the opinion 
but these freedoms have limits and the limits are set where another 
freedom starts because I think that it's clear that there are other 
freedoms like the respect of the privacy.


Anyway I suggest you to make your proposal to person in charge of the 
selection, appointed every time the process starts, may be this person 
can take your comment in consideration.


Kind regards


On 21.10.2015 15:49, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...

I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly
comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.

And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are
member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me."
just to border me.







--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with
violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good
to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?

I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any
argument that corroborates to your statement.


On 21 October 2015 at 12:13, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> The spirit of the Wikimedia Movement I suppose is to be "respectful" of
> each person.
>
> There is the freedom to be informed, there is the freedom of the opinion
> but these freedoms have limits and the limits are set where another freedom
> starts because I think that it's clear that there are other freedoms like
> the respect of the privacy.
>
> Anyway I suggest you to make your proposal to person in charge of the
> selection, appointed every time the process starts, may be this person can
> take your comment in consideration.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 21.10.2015 15:49, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>
>> That's the spirit of Wikimedia Movement, censorship...
>>
>> I was talking about the list, you said: " it's not good to give publicly
>> comments on the candidates." and I asked why, you decided not answer.
>>
>> And you know that AffCom screwed WMBR, so don't come with "If you are
>> member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, not to me."
>> just to border me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

If you are member of a chapter, please ask internally to your chapter, 
not to me.


Before participating to this thread I was really clear: please address 
any comment of the affiliated selected board seats in another place. 
Here we are speaking of the mailing list.


It means that, following my coherence, I would strictly comply with the 
topic of this thread.


Kind regards

On 21.10.2015 15:18, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the
via will not make any difference.

On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats


On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:





--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

*q.e.d.* no arguments, nothing more to add, just ''ad hominem'', and
provocations.

On 21 October 2015 at 13:08, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.
>
> On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>
>> How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with
>> violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not good
>> to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
>>
>
> I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the
> process decided that.
>
> Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.
>
> I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.
>
>
>> I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any
>> argument that corroborates to your statement.
>>
>>
> Yes, I know, you do not understand.
>
> Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't
> like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.
>
> Regards
>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gnangarra]

" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that
> so?
> And candidates? To what?


​To answer that second part first where ever the affiliates as group are
represented by an individual. The first part is simple privacy and
 doing no harm to that individual  ​


On 21 October 2015 at 23:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *q.e.d.* no arguments, nothing more to add, just ''ad hominem'', and
> provocations.
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 13:08, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>
> > I will be simple like explaining it to a baby.
> >
> > On 21.10.2015 16:29, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
> >
> >> How about less provocations, attempts to breakdown the conversation with
> >> violence, and support our idea in a civilized manner ? So " it's not
> good
> >> to give publicly comments on the candidates.", why do you think that?
> >>
> >
> > I think nothing. I administer a list where the entities involved in the
> > process decided that.
> >
> > Decision taken by these entities, I execute their decision.
> >
> > I am, politely, addressing you to the right place to discuss it.
> >
> >
> >> I am not understanding your affirmation, because you did not offer any
> >> argument that corroborates to your statement.
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, I know, you do not understand.
> >
> > Anyway we can continue "ad libitum" for the sample reason that you don't
> > like it but it's not up to me to support your dislike.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ilario Valdelli
> > Wikimedia CH
> > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> > Tel: +41764821371
> > http://www.wikimedia.ch
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> +55 11 979 718 884
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Samuel Klein]

Chris writes:
> My preferred option would be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or
> make it announce-only, scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an
"affiliates"
> list that is open.

There is room for a private list that's only for confidential topics; but
the right list for that may already exist.  As Risker says, you'd want to
limit membership if you expect any confidentiality at all, and focus use of
it on that theme.

Risker writes:



> The mailing list can be configured so that only recognized subscribers can
> post but anyone can view. This has several advantages...



> most of the ones
> that "work" effectively and are good methods for sharing information are
> ones with very specific and narrow functions that deal with information
> that is covered under the access to nonpublic information policy.



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Nathan]

The purpose of "privacy" on a mailing list with hundreds of subscribers is
to avoid easy scrutiny and to bar participation from those who aren't an
approved member of the club. Note that affiliates can't simply add
subscribers; they have to request them. So the questions are - is a private
club concealed from public scrutiny a good idea? Is the opinion of those
who would answer "no" relevant or meaningful?

I'd answer "maybe, probably not" to the first and "apparently not" to the
second. If they want to waste their time with another dead list with no
real purpose and few participants, let them. Few of the subscribers will
even share fluency in a common language. The likelihood of anything
controversial or negative coming from such a list is higher than if it were
public but still quite low.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

This do not answers any of my questions... opacity even in the talk, the
via will not make any difference.

On 21 October 2015 at 10:43, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
>
>
> On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
>
>> " it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that
>> so?
>> And candidates? To what?
>>
>> On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>>
>> Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
>>>
>>> At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs
>>> few subscribers per chapter.
>>>
>>> The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to
>>> give publicly comments on the candidates.
>>>
>>> The need of privacy is crucial.
>>>
>>> Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no
>>> sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for
>>> affiliates.
>>>
>>> Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be
>>> difficult to assure a privacy.
>>>
>>> If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal
>>> mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the
>>> first post.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
>>>
>>> Snipping this separately.

 There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic
 organizations), and this number is growing rapidly.  If each one can
 have
 two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of
 subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really
 remain private and confidential.  Anyone who is discussing anything
 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it
 in
 the wrong place.  The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists
 used
 to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the
 information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).



 --
>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>> Wikimedia CH
>>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>>> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>>> Tel: +41764821371
>>> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats

On 21.10.2015 14:09, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:

" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that
so?
And candidates? To what?

On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:


Exactly, the problem is the manageability.

At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs
few subscribers per chapter.

The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to
give publicly comments on the candidates.

The need of privacy is crucial.

Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no
sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for
affiliates.

Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be
difficult to assure a privacy.

If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal
mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the
first post.

Kind regards

On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:


Snipping this separately.

There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic
organizations), and this number is growing rapidly.  If each one can have
two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of
subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really
remain private and confidential.  Anyone who is discussing anything
'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in
the wrong place.  The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists
used
to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the
information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,








--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

" it's not good to give publicly comments on the candidates." Why is that
so?
And candidates? To what?

On 21 October 2015 at 06:12, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Exactly, the problem is the manageability.
>
> At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs
> few subscribers per chapter.
>
> The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good to
> give publicly comments on the candidates.
>
> The need of privacy is crucial.
>
> Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no
> sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for
> affiliates.
>
> Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be
> difficult to assure a privacy.
>
> If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal
> mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the
> first post.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:
>
>> Snipping this separately.
>>
>> There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic
>> organizations), and this number is growing rapidly.  If each one can have
>> two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of
>> subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really
>> remain private and confidential.  Anyone who is discussing anything
>> 'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in
>> the wrong place.  The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists
>> used
>> to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the
>> information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 979 718 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gnangarra]

the proliferation of lists is also an issue as someone who's been on a
chapter committee for 2 years and going into my third finding the right
lists to join is a problem.

When you rely solely on electronic means of contact you never get the
knowledge of the where discussions are taking place and again the private
lists ensure thats perpetuated.  I understand the reasonings for private
when groups are talking, that makes it critical in maintaining the currency
of lists. The list should be without restriction to all members of a
committee not limited to two or three as that tends to contribute to a
rapid knowledge decay, missed opportunities and facilitation of power plays
all of which ultimately make poor decisions easier to incur and harder to
fix

On 21 October 2015 at 11:13, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is
> "private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could  be used
> to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an
> opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and
> problems must not be hidden from the "public".
>
> This privates clubs are not  coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement.
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
> > want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally.  If
> there
> > isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
> > other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera.  If
> > affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare
> of
> > publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't
> force
> > them into some form of radical transparency.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> > > appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
> > >
> > > And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> > > opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
> > > affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not
> > > waiting for a hostile environment.
> > >
> > > The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like
> running
> > an
> > > affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same
> > > task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you
> > can't
> > > imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it
> > > certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience.
> > > Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task
> > wanted
> > > to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that
> position
> > > myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I
> > am
> > > not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their
> > > messages.
> > >
> > > And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed
> > > mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community.
> > > The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is
> by
> > > saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task.
> > The
> > > "we versus them" thoughts.
> > >
> > > And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small
> > amount
> > > of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of
> hard
> > > discussions that occur from time to time.
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > >
> > >
> > > 2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart :
> > >
> > > > You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is
> > suboptimal.
> > > > This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> > > > discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and
> polling
> > > the
> > > > list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is
> > going
> > > > to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
> > > there
> > > > is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> > > >
> > > > Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
> > > occurring
> > > > in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that
> should
> > be
> > > > private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be
> > discussed
> > > > on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> > > >
> > > > If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
> > > broader
> > > > community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled
> > garden
> > > > they're already in.
> > > >
> > > > --Ed
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

Exactly, the problem is the manageability.

At the moment chapters list is more or less manageable because it needs 
few subscribers per chapter.


The chapters mailing list must be kept "private" because it's not good 
to give publicly comments on the candidates.


The need of privacy is crucial.

Migrating the chapters mailing list to an affiliates mailing list has no 
sense, but there is a real need to have a place of discussion for 
affiliates.


Considering the high number of affiliates I agree that it would be 
difficult to assure a privacy.


If you remember well, this has been also the killing reason for internal 
mailing list when private discussions were public immediately after the 
first post.


Kind regards

On 21.10.2015 05:04, Risker wrote:

Snipping this separately.

There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic
organizations), and this number is growing rapidly.  If each one can have
two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of
subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really
remain private and confidential.  Anyone who is discussing anything
'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in
the wrong place.  The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used
to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the
information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Romaine Wiki]

I do question why some members from the community should be involved in
chapter/affiliates issues.
If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference
from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was
created.

And there is no transparency reduction. The suggestion that with creating
this list the transparency is reduced is an illusion. If affiliates want to
communicate with only affiliates, they will found another way to do that
without doing that publicly, and that is much less transparent.

Earlier on the chapters mailing list it appeared there is a enough support
for a closed list.

Wikimedia is a large movement. In that movement a lot of things are done
and a various set of tasks are performed. Each of those people doing the
same tasks like to be able to communicate with other people doing the same
task(s). To communicate effectively e-mail lists are created. For example,
also Wikipedia admins have multiple private mailing lists, arbcom, OTRS,
Stewards, etc. They all have sensitive data, but they also just like to be
able to share experiences, ask questions with people who do the same tasks,
and have some basic level of communication. This communication is essential
for doing a task and improving the quality in how this task is executed.
This communication will happen anyway. But they are two ways to organise
that: organised in a closed mailing list or not organised with people
communicate only directly with excluding many relevant people.

No, there is not a new another walled garden, it is just a better organised
walled garden that exists already for a long time in other forms.

Romaine



2015-10-19 19:10 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart :

> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more
> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create
> yet another walled garden away from the community.
>
> --Ed
> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> > Got it. Thanks Varnent.
> >
> > Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
> want
> > to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
> > outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
> the
> > purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
> > smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to
> a
> > limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
> > get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
> > (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
> > affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
> > capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
> working
> > on this.
> >
> > Pine
> > On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Pine,
> > >
> > > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
> discussions
> > > with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
> > We
> > > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
> list
> > > (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
> ultimately,
> > > we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> > >
> > > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> > > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> > > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
> of
> > > our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
> personal
> > > hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
> that
> > is
> > > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> > > manage.
> > >
> > > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
> mailing
> > > > list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> > > ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear all,
> > > >>
> > > >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce
> the
> > > >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically
> a
> > > place
> > > >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
> groups)
> > > to
> > > >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> > > >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
> > The
> > > >> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

On 20.10.2015 23:40, Romaine Wiki wrote:

I do question why some members from the community should be involved in
chapter/affiliates issues.
If affiliates want to communicate with each other, without interference
from individual users, they had no way to do such until this list was
created.

And there is no transparency reduction. The suggestion that with creating
this list the transparency is reduced is an illusion. If affiliates want to
communicate with only affiliates, they will found another way to do that
without doing that publicly, and that is much less transparent.




There is already a "closed" mailing list but it has a low traffic 
exactly for the point that it's "closed".


After several discussions within the community about the approach of 
"closed circle", Chapters would be "open" and "transparent" and would 
avoid that there is the feeling that in some places are happening 
machinations or conspiracies.


What is really missed is an "open" space where discussions about 
chapters can happen.


Kind regards

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Craig Franklin]

Hi All,

One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally.  If there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera.  If
affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare of
publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't force
them into some form of radical transparency.

Cheers,
Craig

On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
>
> And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
> affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not
> waiting for a hostile environment.
>
> The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running an
> affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same
> task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you can't
> imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it
> certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience.
> Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task wanted
> to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position
> myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I am
> not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their
> messages.
>
> And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed
> mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community.
> The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by
> saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task. The
> "we versus them" thoughts.
>
> And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small amount
> of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard
> discussions that occur from time to time.
>
> Romaine
>
>
> 2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart :
>
> > You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
> > This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> > discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling
> the
> > list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
> > to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
> there
> > is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> >
> > Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
> occurring
> > in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
> > private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
> > on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> >
> > If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
> broader
> > community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
> > they're already in.
> >
> > --Ed
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
> > issue
> > > (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
> > >
> > > I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on
> the
> > > list would like to do.
> > >
> > > I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
> > privacy.
> > > One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
> include
> > > financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with
> the
> > > WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> > > understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> > > discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
> > >
> > > If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> > > might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
> several
> > > private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> > > requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> > > private, which seems reasonable.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> > > affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
> > like
> > > to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
> > >
> > > I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> > > worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
> > suppose)
> > > by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the
> target
> > > audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward.
> The
> > > end result would likely 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Risker]

On 20 October 2015 at 18:00, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
>
> And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
> affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not
> waiting for a hostile environment.
>
>

Snipping this separately.

There are almost 90 affiliates (including chapters and thematic
organizations), and this number is growing rapidly.  If each one can have
two or three members of this mailing list, we're talking hundreds of
subscribers. A list with that many subscribers is never going to really
remain private and confidential.  Anyone who is discussing anything
'sensitive' on a list with that many subscribers is, frankly, doing it in
the wrong place.  The existing chapters-l and internal-l mailing lists used
to leak like sieves when they were in heavy use (and in addition the
information that was leaked was often distorted and incomplete).

The mailing list can be configured so that only recognized subscribers can
post but anyone can view. This has several advantages:  reduced mailing
list management time/costs, ability of other chapter execs/members to keep
up with discussions when the subscriber members are unavailable, ability of
potential user groups and other affiliates to learn from osmosis, not only
from current discussions but from archives. Learning patterns can be pulled
out of the archives once the list has been around for a while.   Public
lists also tend to moderate the behaviour of those who may push things in
inappropriate directions (sexist or harassing comments, bullying, etc).

I don't have a pony in this race, but I do have a ton of experience with
nonpublic Wikimedia movement related mailing lists - and most of the ones
that "work" effectively and are good methods for sharing information are
ones with very specific and narrow functions that deal with information
that is covered under the access to nonpublic information policy.
Regardless of whether the decision is a public or a private list, ensure
that there are hard rules about who can and cannot subscribe, what actions
will be considered unacceptable, and what will be done if any subscriber
behaves inappropriately (e.g., does the person get unsubscribed, is there
an appeal mechanism, what's the complaints mechanism, do affiliates who
have a member "unsubscribed" get to replace that person with someone else,
etc.)

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is
"private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could  be used
to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an
opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and
problems must not be hidden from the "public".

This privates clubs are not  coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement.

On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
> want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally.  If there
> isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
> other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera.  If
> affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare of
> publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't force
> them into some form of radical transparency.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
> > Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> > appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
> >
> > And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> > opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
> > affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not
> > waiting for a hostile environment.
> >
> > The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running
> an
> > affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same
> > task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you
> can't
> > imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it
> > certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience.
> > Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task
> wanted
> > to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position
> > myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I
> am
> > not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their
> > messages.
> >
> > And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed
> > mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community.
> > The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by
> > saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task.
> The
> > "we versus them" thoughts.
> >
> > And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small
> amount
> > of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard
> > discussions that occur from time to time.
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> >
> > 2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart :
> >
> > > You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is
> suboptimal.
> > > This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> > > discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling
> > the
> > > list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is
> going
> > > to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
> > there
> > > is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> > >
> > > Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
> > occurring
> > > in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should
> be
> > > private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be
> discussed
> > > on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> > >
> > > If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
> > broader
> > > community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled
> garden
> > > they're already in.
> > >
> > > --Ed
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> > gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
> > > issue
> > > > (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on
> > the
> > > > list would like to do.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
> > > privacy.
> > > > One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
> > include
> > > > financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with
> > the
> > > > WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> > > > understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> > > > discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
> > > >
> > > > If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> > > > might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
> > several
> > > > private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Carlos M. Colina]

Like Greg explained, the request to have such a list came *from the 
affiliates* themselves. So why force it to become another wikimedia-l?


M.

El 19/10/2015 a las 09:21 p.m., Gregory Varnum escribió:

There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue 
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.

I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list 
would like to do.

I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One 
of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial 
or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice 
on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that 
there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their 
comments are up for public discussion.

If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be 
something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists 
already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. 
That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.

Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, 
and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that 
and allow them to discuss it more.

I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth 
doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by 
imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience 
of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result 
would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a 
separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.

-greg



On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

+1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.

A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.

The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
archives should be public.

Gregory Varnum writes:

the whole point of creating it would be defeated.

Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
publicly visible or archived.

The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
recognition process) will be walled out.

SJ

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:


Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
number of people on it.

Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee



On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:

I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require

more

than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and

create

yet another walled garden away from the community.

--Ed
On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:


Got it. Thanks Varnent.

Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really

want

to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be

run

outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if

the

purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in

a

smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees

to a

limited degree, then the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi all,
I support Chris' arguments and I would add some points.

As administrator of the chapters mailing list I think that the best is 
to recover some "historical memory", which is never regrettable. 
Considering that we are going to celebrate several year of birthday of 
Wikipedia or of Wikimedia projects, I think that the "historical memory" 
is more than an asset.


I personally can support the creation of a mailing list like this for 
several reasons:


1) the chapters mailing list is closed for a specific reason
2) users groups cannot be accepted for a specif reason, even if there is 
a strong pressure
3) The chapters mailing list is hard to maintain because, as closed 
mailing list, the update and the verification requires time and 
workload, and this workload is manageable only if there is a limited 
number of subscriptions


The chapters mailing list exists *only* to assure a neutral (and this 
word makes sense) and a "demilitarized zone" to discuss and to announce 
the selection of the WMF's board members assigned to the chapters.


I would not open here a long discussion about the process or about the 
assignments to the chapters of these two seats (not all WMF board 
members are selected by the community), the chapters are considered as a 
stakeholder and the chapters asked to have a place like this. So please 
discuss in other places this item.


So the point 1) is justified.

The users groups cannot be accepted until the users groups cannot 
participate in this selection because the main aim of the mailing list 
is exactly that. So the point 2) is justified.


I personally can assure that to keep this place "neutral" there is a 
long verification of the eligibility of the members and it requires a 
lot of time.


The chapters mailing list has very low traffic because is used also to 
make some announcements (for instance the Wikimedia Conference) because 
not all chapters members follow Wikimedia-l.


Except these two utilization, there are nothing else.

At this point I would correct my sentence and I would say that: "I 
personally can support the creation of a mailing list" but I would add 
"not a twin of the chapters mailing list".


A closed and limited mailing list will be a simple replication of the 
chapters mailing list except the big workload to manage more 
subscriptions. It makes sense and can complete the chapters mailing list 
only if it is "open" and "transparent". Anyone who would open an user 
group can follow it, any chapters who would use the chapters mailing 
list for a use different to the main one, would be addressed to the open 
mailing list.


And as personal hint I suggest to keep it open because the management of 
a close mailing list with a high number of eligible subscribers may 
require a lot of time and verification.


Kind regards


On 19.10.2015 21:12, Chris Keating wrote:

Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
"chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
could have been publically archived with no problem.

The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
interesting on the list.

On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
ratio...)

What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.

Chris





--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

Again - I do not feel comfortable making this decision on behalf of the 
affiliates. I will pass all of this along to them when we have a list going 
enough to discuss such things.

If the consensus from the community is that a change be imposed on this list, 
which I agree is the right of the community, my personal hunch is that a new 
list will be created elsewhere and used instead. Keep in mind that chapters-l 
was maintained off WMF servers in part to protect privacy and prevent it from 
being subject to such changes. Again, if the goal is for the list to be used by 
affiliates, I question the reason to impose change on them, especially when it 
was something they specifically requested.

-greg

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> 
> You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
> This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the
> list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
> to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there
> is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> 
> Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring
> in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
> private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
> on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> 
> If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader
> community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
> they're already in.
> 
> --Ed
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
>> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>> 
>> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
>> list would like to do.
>> 
>> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
>> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
>> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
>> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
>> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
>> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>> 
>> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
>> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
>> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
>> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
>> private, which seems reasonable.
>> 
>> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
>> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
>> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>> 
>> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
>> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
>> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
>> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
>> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
>> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
>> avoid that.
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
>>> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
>>> 
>>> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
>>> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
>>> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
>>> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
>>> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
>>> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
>>> 
>>> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
>>> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
>>> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
>>> archives should be public.
>>> 
>>> Gregory Varnum writes:
 the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
>>> 
>>> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
>>> discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
>> affiliates
>>> who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
>>> you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
>>> publicly visible or archived.
>>> 
>>> The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
>>> people who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue 
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.

I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list 
would like to do.

I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One 
of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial 
or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice 
on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that 
there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their 
comments are up for public discussion.

If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be 
something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists 
already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. 
That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.

Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, 
and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that 
and allow them to discuss it more.

I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth 
doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by 
imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience 
of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result 
would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a 
separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.

-greg


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> 
> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> 
> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> 
> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> archives should be public.
> 
> Gregory Varnum writes:
>> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> 
> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
> who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> publicly visible or archived.
> 
> The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
> recognition process) will be walled out.
> 
> SJ
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
>> number of people on it.
>> 
>> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
>> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
>> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
>> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
>> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
>> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
>> 
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
>> more
>>> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
>> create
>>> yet another walled garden away from the community.
>>> 
>>> --Ed
>>> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>>> 
 Got it. Thanks Varnent.
 
 Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
>> want
 to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
>> run
 outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
>> the
 purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
>> a
 smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
>> to a
 limited degree, then the hosting 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Chris Keating]

Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
"chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
could have been publically archived with no problem.

The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
interesting on the list.

On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
ratio...)

What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.

Chris


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>
> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
> list would like to do.
>
> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>
> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> private, which seems reasonable.
>
> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>
> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
> avoid that.
>
> -greg
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> > public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> >
> > A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> > (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> > list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> > list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> > can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> > discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> >
> > The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> > decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> > And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> > archives should be public.
> >
> > Gregory Varnum writes:
> >> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> >
> > Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> > discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
> affiliates
> > who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> > you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> > publicly visible or archived.
> >
> > The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> > people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> > new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> > forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> > communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ed Erhart]

You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the
list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there
is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?

Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring
in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.

If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader
community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
they're already in.

--Ed

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>
> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
> list would like to do.
>
> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>
> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> private, which seems reasonable.
>
> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>
> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
> avoid that.
>
> -greg
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> > public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> >
> > A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> > (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> > list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> > list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> > can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> > discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> >
> > The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> > decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> > And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> > archives should be public.
> >
> > Gregory Varnum writes:
> >> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> >
> > Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> > discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
> affiliates
> > who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> > you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> > publicly visible or archived.
> >
> > The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> > people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> > new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> > forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> > communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
> formal
> > recognition process) will be walled out.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
> >> number of people on it.
> >>
> >> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
> for
> >> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
> >> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
> >> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
> the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list - are 
why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept private.

Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact not be 
that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of everyone. 
However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their behalf. I 
would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.

-greg

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Chris Keating  wrote:
> 
> Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
> of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
> Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
> "chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
> could have been publically archived with no problem.
> 
> The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
> Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
> itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
> English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
> the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
> back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
> interesting on the list.
> 
> On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
> plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
> at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
> could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
> really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
> ratio...)
> 
> What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
> private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
> be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
> scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
>> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>> 
>> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
>> list would like to do.
>> 
>> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
>> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
>> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
>> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
>> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
>> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>> 
>> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
>> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
>> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
>> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
>> private, which seems reasonable.
>> 
>> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
>> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
>> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>> 
>> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
>> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
>> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
>> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
>> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
>> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
>> avoid that.
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
>>> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
>>> 
>>> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
>>> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
>>> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
>>> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
>>> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
>>> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
>>> 
>>> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
>>> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
>>> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
>>> archives should be public.
>>> 
>>> Gregory Varnum writes:
 the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
>>> 
>>> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list -
> are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept
> private.
>
> Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact
> not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of
> everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their
> behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
>
> -greg


​I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we
want to talk about transparency" post.

<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list>
​



-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Sam Klein]

+1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.

A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.

The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
archives should be public.

Gregory Varnum writes:
> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.

Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
publicly visible or archived.

The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
recognition process) will be walled out.

SJ

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
> number of people on it.
>
> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> >
> > I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
> more
> > than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
> create
> > yet another walled garden away from the community.
> >
> > --Ed
> > On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> >
> >> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
> >>
> >> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
> want
> >> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
> run
> >> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
> the
> >> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
> a
> >> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
> to a
> >> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally,
> I
> >> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
> >> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
> >> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
> >> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
> working
> >> on this.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey Pine,
> >>>
> >>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
> discussions
> >>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
> >> We
> >>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
> list
> >>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
> ultimately,
> >>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> >>>
> >>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> >>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> >>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
> of
> >>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
> personal
> >>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
> that
> >> is
> >>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> >>> manage.
> >>>
> >>> -greg (User:Varnent)
> >>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Carlos,
> 
>  Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
>  list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
>  ).
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

There was already a discussion on this list and its privacy:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
 


I suggest building on that rather than starting a whole new one.

-greg


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list -
>> are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept
>> private.
>> 
>> Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact
>> not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of
>> everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their
>> behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
>> 
>> -greg
> 
> 
> ​I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we
> want to talk about transparency" post.
> 
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list>
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~Keegan
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> 
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Ed Erhart]

I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create
yet another walled garden away from the community.

--Ed
On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
>
> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want
> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the
> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a
> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working
> on this.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Pine,
> >
> > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions
> > with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
> We
> > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list
> > (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately,
> > we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> >
> > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of
> > our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal
> > hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
> is
> > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> > manage.
> >
> > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
> > > list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> > ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> > >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> > place
> > >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
> > to
> > >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> > >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
> The
> > >> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
> movement,
> > >> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> > >> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> > >> communications from affiliates.
> > >>
> > >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
> > mailing
> > >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> > >> additional spots if needed.
> > >>
> > >> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> > >> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Carlos
> > >> --
> > >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> wayuukanairua
> > >> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> junain."
> > >> Carlos M. Colina
> > >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > >> 
> > >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > >> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > >> Twitter: @maor_x
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number 
of people on it.

Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them 
to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on 
them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating 
it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it 
seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus 
of those we hope will utilize the list most.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> 
> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more
> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create
> yet another walled garden away from the community.
> 
> --Ed
> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> 
>> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
>> 
>> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want
>> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
>> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the
>> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
>> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a
>> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
>> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
>> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
>> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
>> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working
>> on this.
>> 
>> Pine
>> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey Pine,
>>> 
>>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions
>>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
>> We
>>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list
>>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately,
>>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
>>> 
>>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
>>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
>>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of
>>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal
>>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
>> is
>>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
>>> manage.
>>> 
>>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>> 
>>> 
 On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
 
 Hi Carlos,
 
 Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
 list? (Also, please see the discussion at
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
 ).
 
 Thanks,
 
 Pine
 
 On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
>>> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
 wrote:
 
> Dear all,
> 
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
>>> place
> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
>>> to
> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
>> The
> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
>> movement,
> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> communications from affiliates.
> 
> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
>>> mailing
> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> additional spots if needed.
> 
> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Carlos
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
>> wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
>> junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

Hey Pine,

As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions with 
affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to. We did talk 
with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list (largely why 
the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately, we decided to 
proceed with the creation of this list.

The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to AffCom, so 
I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming increasingly inactive, 
is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of our affiliates), and not 
something we have promoted recently. My personal hope is that this new broader 
list replaces that one over time, but that is not something we can “force” as 
it’s not a resource we officially help manage.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee


> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
> list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> ).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pine
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place
>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to
>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The
>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement,
>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
>> communications from affiliates.
>> 
>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing
>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
>> additional spots if needed.
>> 
>> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Carlos
>> --
>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina
>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
>> 
>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>> Twitter: @maor_x
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Neil P. Quinn]

Carlos,

Is there a reason why the list is private? The topics you mentioned—general
affiliate discussion, regional conferences, blog post announcements, and so
on—don't seem particularly sensitive. (I'm just curious. My WMF role has
nothing to do with affiliates and I wouldn't subscribe to the list even if
it were public.)

Thanks!

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
> list? (Also, please see the discussion at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> ).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> > launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> place
> > for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to
> > discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> > affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The
> > idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement,
> > plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> > edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> > communications from affiliates.
> >
> > Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing
> > list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> > additional spots if needed.
> >
> > Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> > and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carlos
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Carlos M. Colina
> > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > 
> > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > Twitter: @maor_x
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Neil P. Quinn ,
product analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Pine W]

Got it. Thanks Varnent.

Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want
to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the
purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a
limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
(there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working
on this.

Pine
On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum"  wrote:

> Hey Pine,
>
> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions
> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to. We
> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list
> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately,
> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
>
> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of
> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal
> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that is
> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> manage.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
> > list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> > ).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> place
> >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
> to
> >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The
> >> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement,
> >> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> >> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> >> communications from affiliates.
> >>
> >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
> mailing
> >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> >> additional spots if needed.
> >>
> >> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> >> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Carlos
> >> --
> >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> >> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> >> Carlos M. Colina
> >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> >> 
> >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> >> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> >> Twitter: @maor_x
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Pine W]

Hi Carlos,

Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
list? (Also, please see the discussion at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
).

Thanks,

Pine

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place
> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to
> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The
> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement,
> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> communications from affiliates.
>
> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing
> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> additional spots if needed.
>
> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
>
> Regards,
> Carlos
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Carlos M. Colina]

Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the 
launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a 
place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user 
groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to 
other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide 
events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across 
our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide 
activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, 
or other communications from affiliates.


Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the 
mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to 
request additional spots if needed.


Please find a bit more information on Meta: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list 
and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.


Regards,
Carlos
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

[Gregory Varnum]

Hey Neil,

I’ll let Carlos add his thoughts, but basically, this was a consistent request 
from affiliates. So the short answer is that the target audience requested it, 
and we want them to use it. :) The page that Pine mentioned 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
 
)
 is one example of where this request came up.

Slightly longer answer, and I am interpreting and summarizing what I heard from 
affiliates, is that they would like a space to privately discuss issues - 
sometimes sensitive in nature - with each other. As Carlos mentioned, the first 
mentioned goal is a space for affiliates to discuss issues specific to their 
work. I think the concern is that if it was up for public review (not that 
affiliates fear public debates), they might be less willing or even able to 
discuss some issues that might, for example, involve financial matters, privacy 
issues, or embargoed communications.

Hope that helps answer your question.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 8:59 PM, Neil P. Quinn  wrote:
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> Is there a reason why the list is private? The topics you mentioned—general
> affiliate discussion, regional conferences, blog post announcements, and so
> on—don't seem particularly sensitive. (I'm just curious. My WMF role has
> nothing to do with affiliates and I wouldn't subscribe to the list even if
> it were public.)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Carlos,
>> 
>> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
>> ).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Pine
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
>> place
>>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to
>>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
>>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The
>>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement,
>>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
>>> communications from affiliates.
>>> 
>>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing
>>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
>>> additional spots if needed.
>>> 
>>> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Carlos
>>> --
>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>>> Carlos M. Colina
>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
>>> 
>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Neil P. Quinn ,
> product analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,