Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Romaine Wiki
Hi!

Sorry, I had not the intention to write a Wikipedia article that is
balanced.

The only thing I tried to describe is some signals in the media that give
me concerns.

But I am sorry to say, but your reaction is something what I would call
naieve, and biased as well. You are free to think that way, as I think now
otherwise.

At this point in time I do not think full censorship will be implemented in
the US, but I found partially censorship (government) already very
concerning. And it is not just the government but a large number of
institutions that should deliver facts, but are no longer allowed to freely
publish facts. This also includes universities.

Yes, a government is free to determine what policy it chooses, but that
gives no reason to delete everything (read: all data) they do not like.
There is a big difference between chosing something different and ordering
to censor.

Also this will in the end lead to a situation that this will affect
everyone via an indirect route.

Freedom of press already is troubled by attacking media.

I do not say it will happen, but I say we should consider what options we
have if it would go wrong in any form we currently do not expect.

Romaine

Op vrijdag 27 januari 2017 heeft John  het
volgende geschreven:

> I must say the tone of the initial post to this is alarmingly biased and
> almost misleading. Yes the incoming president has placed a hold on
> releasing additional material. By no means does that imply that they will
> start censoring data that they release or in any way affect the private
> sector. Because the incoming president holds a opposite view as the
> predecessor it's not surprising that they would want to audit the releases
> to ensure that the data has a solid factual grounding. I've lost count of
> the number of research studies and papers that I have seen that when
> actually placed under a microscope don't hold up. However often the
> mainstream media takes these and runs with them.
>
> The United States is based on freedom of the press, not freedom of the
> government. there is zero chance that the president will be able to censor
> the private sector.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Vi to
Actually some parties might bring EU to low standards of freedom of
expression.
For what concerns Wikimedia, I fear more lobbying about copyright related
legislation or about net neutrality than USA turning into a dictatorship.
I'm not afraid of a complete service disruption but instead of things
getting more and more complicate in a globalized World being broken up. We
rely upon a level of freedom to move people and data (mainly among the two
shorelines of the Atlantic ocean) which has no precedents in human history.
Offline backups -to renew on yearly basis- are not so expensive to be
physically sent to chapters, or at least a certain number of chapters
meeting some requirements (e.g. a physical location, some IT, etc.). It
would instead be *hard* to rebuild an infrastructure almost from the
scratch.
What puzzles me is our ability to nullify impact of end of USA safe harbor
or (possible) or, for example, Netherlands ceasing net neutrality
(currently almost impossible) or similar kind of changes in any Country,
which doesn't imply dictatorship but still will have a significantly impact
over our operations.

Vito

2017-01-28 13:07 GMT+01:00 Romaine Wiki :

> Hi Nathan,
>
> You describe what I tried to say: threats to the environment in what
> Wikimedia operates.
>
> In the Netherlands there has been a government based on populism (with
> Geert Wilders) but the effects were very limited. The same in other EU
> countries. Political parties and political leaders in Europe are aware of
> the world wars that took place and are not out of the minds, so extremes
> are much less extreme. Even in comparison with the US now less extreme.
>
> Like the archives of Alexandria got lost due being stored in one place, let
> us not make that mistake again. Whatever the cause of troubles is, nature,
> humans, fire, etc.
>
> To me the most safe option would be to have a back up at every continent,
> thus the risks are spread.
>
> Romaine
>
> Op zaterdag 28 januari 2017 heeft Nathan  het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> > Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the
> turn
> > to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> > Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> > assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> > Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
> > quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> > UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if
> not
> > for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
> > we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that
> beset
> > the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> > before
> > > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > > approve this.
> > >
> > > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > > Even if it is only partially.
> > >
> > > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data
> abroad,
> > > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on
> servers
> > in
> > > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> > >
> > > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > who
> > > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> did
> > > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> > >
> > > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some
> time,
> > >
> > > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia
> and
> > > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> > >
> > > This is just the first week of this president!
> > >
> > > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make
> sure
> > > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > > still starts to get concerning.
> > >
> > > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > freedom
> > > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location
> where
> > > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> largest, I
> > > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> > >
> > > To my impression 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Romaine Wiki
Hi Nathan,

You describe what I tried to say: threats to the environment in what
Wikimedia operates.

In the Netherlands there has been a government based on populism (with
Geert Wilders) but the effects were very limited. The same in other EU
countries. Political parties and political leaders in Europe are aware of
the world wars that took place and are not out of the minds, so extremes
are much less extreme. Even in comparison with the US now less extreme.

Like the archives of Alexandria got lost due being stored in one place, let
us not make that mistake again. Whatever the cause of troubles is, nature,
humans, fire, etc.

To me the most safe option would be to have a back up at every continent,
thus the risks are spread.

Romaine

Op zaterdag 28 januari 2017 heeft Nathan  het volgende
geschreven:

> Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn
> to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
> quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if not
> for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
> we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that beset
> the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki  >
> wrote:
>
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom
> > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> > should be protected.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Thyge
It's not so challenging, Nathan -we just need to make a copy of a full
backup for each language version, we have and store it in the
country/countries where the language is spoken. This avoids any bias in the
selection.

Regards,
Sir48-Thyge

2017-01-28 2:12 GMT+01:00 Nathan :

> Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn
> to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
> quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if not
> for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
> we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that beset
> the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom
> > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> > should be protected.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Pine W
I have created a Phabricator task here:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156544

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Gnangarra
>
> Nathan said "*its only reasonable to consider a move of core **assets
> somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric*
> ​..
> *This is more challenging than I expected. Where will​ ​*
> *we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that
> beset​ ​**the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States*​"​


New Zealand would be a possibility it's showing to be a lot more
politically stable, and its neighbor Australia though it does have a
greater trust at a political level of the US Government along with a minor
notable "Republican trump like" political party but nowhere near the
extremism or any significant depth of support.

On 28 January 2017 at 09:12, Nathan  wrote:

> Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn
> to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
> quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if not
> for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
> we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that beset
> the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> before
> > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > approve this.
> >
> > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > Even if it is only partially.
> >
> > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data abroad,
> > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on servers
> in
> > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> >
> > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> who
> > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I did
> > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> >
> > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >
> > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some time,
> >
> > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia and
> > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> >
> > This is just the first week of this president!
> >
> > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make sure
> > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > still starts to get concerning.
> >
> > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> freedom
> > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location where
> > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the largest, I
> > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> >
> > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > actually move when the danger grows.
> >
> > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> >
> > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> >
> >
> > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> and
> > should be protected.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Romaine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Gnangarra
In this case I think its more than the projects that need to be protected,
there are a lot of resources based in the US that may need to be
distributed on a wider base including personal/private data already
collected by the WMF. There are already practical challenges ahead with US
visa changes including to the interview exemptions for 38 countries. WMF
may need to establish an office in a more accessible country and allow for
greater costs in travel.

On 28 January 2017 at 17:03, Thyge  wrote:

> It's not so challenging, Nathan -we just need to make a copy of a full
> backup for each language version, we have and store it in the
> country/countries where the language is spoken. This avoids any bias in the
> selection.
>
> Regards,
> Sir48-Thyge
>
> 2017-01-28 2:12 GMT+01:00 Nathan :
>
> > Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the
> turn
> > to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> > Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> > assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> > Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders is
> > quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> > UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if
> not
> > for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where will
> > we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that
> beset
> > the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet as
> > > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> > before
> > > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > > approve this.
> > >
> > > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > > Even if it is only partially.
> > >
> > > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data
> abroad,
> > > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on
> servers
> > in
> > > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> > >
> > > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive organisation,
> > who
> > > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> did
> > > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> > >
> > > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some
> time,
> > >
> > > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment free Wikipedia
> and
> > > the free word, while the president of the US is promoting harassment,
> > > disrespect and censorship on a massive scale.
> > >
> > > This is just the first week of this president!
> > >
> > > I am 100% sure everyone in the Wikimedia movement is willing to make
> sure
> > > Wikimedia faces no damage whatsoever, including in WMF, but to me this
> > > still starts to get concerning.
> > >
> > > If we as Wikimedia movement think that free knowledge, free speech,
> > freedom
> > > of information, etc are important, I would think that the location
> where
> > > the organisation is based is that country where liberty is the
> largest, I
> > > do not know where this is but it is definitely not the US.
> > >
> > > To my impression WMF is stuck in the US, so I do not believe they would
> > > actually move when the danger grows.
> > >
> > > But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the
> world.
> > > Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> > > knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> > >
> > > To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wikimedia movement should
> > > think about a back-up plan if it actually goes wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you do not agree with me: that is perfectly fine, that's your right
> > and
> > > should be protected.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-28 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Gerard,

If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
particularly good?

Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
contribute to the WMF strategic planning process?  If so, by all means say
so explicitly.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
> I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
>
> It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
> What community?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> >
>
> > Anna
> >
> >
> > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
> understanding
> > > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> > >
> >
> > Got it, thanks for asking.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > So for example, in the
> > > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
> between
> > > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of
> software
> > > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> > the
> > > > software roadmap would be effective.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
> do.
> > > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
> decided
> > > upon
> > > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> > >
> >
> > I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> > ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
> some
> > ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> > strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
> lot
> > of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early
> consultation
> > would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> > English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> > social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> > work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> > implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> > even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> > Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> > really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
> representable
> > by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> > genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
> .
> > This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> > collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would
> also
> > require a Roadmap, see below.
> >
> > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> guidelines
> > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> >
> >
> > > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > > some time.
> > >
> > >
> > > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
> not a
> > > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> > not
> > > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> > achieved
> > > *the
> > > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait
> to
> > > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> > >
> >
> > Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
> and
> > transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > that
> > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > fought
> > > for it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > >
> >
> > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> at
> > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
> > changed in the 

[Wikimedia-l] General Assembly: board + annual reports

2017-01-28 Thread Romaine Wiki
Dear all,

Today Wikimedia Belgium had the annual General Assembly
.

At 1 January 2017 the board had five board members. Every board member is
elected for a two years term, besides the president who is elected every
year. From these five board members, the two year term of two of them ended
(Romaine + Afernand74), as well as the term of the president ended
(Geertivp).

With no new applications for board members and the General Assembly and
board happy with how the past period has been dealt and how stable the
board has become, the General Assembly voted to give the three board
members a new term. Meaning that the board stays the same and as stable
team can move forward with our chapter.

The board is composed out of Geertivp (president), Romaine (treasurer),
SPQRobin (secretary), Afernand74 (National Liaison) and Lfurter (Gender and
Diversity Liaison).
See also: https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board


Before the voting, the reporting from the past year was discussed, and the
board has been cleared responsibility.

The financial report from Wikimedia Belgium about 2016 can be found at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/
Wikimedia_Belgium/Financial/2016

The activity report from Wikimedia Belgium about 2016 can be found at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/
Wikimedia_Belgium/Activity/2016


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Sam Klein
Thank you, Pine.

Yes, this is essential.  We've avoided the issue in the past, but it's time
to have a proper international backup now.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I have created a Phabricator task here:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156544
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
wrong with the notions pandered.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 28 January 2017 at 18:54, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
> the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
> plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
> who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
> particularly good?
>
> Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
> who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
> contribute to the WMF strategic planning process?  If so, by all means say
> so explicitly.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en
> wp,
> > I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
> >
> > It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
> > What community?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> > > Anna
> > >
> > >
> > > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > > > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
> > understanding
> > > > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones
> in
> > > > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Got it, thanks for asking.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > So for example, in the
> > > > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
> > between
> > > > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of
> > software
> > > > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management
> developing
> > > the
> > > > > software roadmap would be effective.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
> > do.
> > > > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > > > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what
> to
> > > > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
> > decided
> > > > upon
> > > > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing
> bright
> > > ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
> > some
> > > ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at
> the
> > > strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
> > lot
> > > of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early
> > consultation
> > > would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> > > English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> > > social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> > > work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> > > implementation made it all but impossible to do that work
> satisfactorily
> > > even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> > > Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the
> projects
> > > really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
> > representable
> > > by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> > > genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics,
> ...
> > .
> > > This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> > > collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would
> > also
> > > require a Roadmap, see below.
> > >
> > > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> > guidelines
> > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > > > some time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
> > not a
> > > > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing
> is
> > > not
> > > > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> > > achieved
> > > > *the
> > > > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > > > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll
> wait
> > to
> > > > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
> > and
> > > transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a 

[Wikimedia-l] personal information in reader logs kept for 60 days (was Re: Concerns in general)

2017-01-28 Thread James Salsman
> there are a lot of resources based in the US that may
> need to be distributed on a wider base including
> personal/private data already collected by the WMF

For editors, but not readers. On November 8 a top
foundation official tweeted that the Foundation would
not store personally identifying information in reader
logs. Samuel Klein retweeted the statement, but the
tweet has since been deleted.

According to this recently created document:

https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data/Webrequest/RawIPUsage

the Foundation keeps full reader logs with IP addresses
so that "in order to allow buffer time to be able to rerun
metrics due to bugs or data issues." Although the
analytics team has been responsive to many of my
questions, nobody has been able to give any reasons
why it is more important to "rerun metrics" than to
protect the privacy of readers, after repeated requests
for any such reasons, or even the basis upon such
a decision about the trade-off is made. Furthermore,
while that document states that it's "imperative for
Ops to be able to examine raw IP addresses" but after
at least half a dozen requests, nobody in analytics or
Ops has said whether Ops is able to use the request
logs with IP addresses but not article names.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-28 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Gerard,


> What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
> the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
> wrong with the notions pandered.


I agree, and the more readily since I do not think, and have not said, that
the English-language Wikipedia constitutes the whole of the Community:
there are many languages, many projects, and in addition to the many who
contribute the content to the projects, there are those community members
who contribute through technical work or strategic advice.

The Foundation needs to be able to enagage with all these people.  That is
not easy, and will require work, technical tools and genuine willingness,
but it can be done – more, it must be done.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-28 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Anna


> To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
>

Got it, thanks for asking.


>
> > So for example, in the
> > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the
> > software roadmap would be effective.
>
>
> I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> upon
> they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
>

I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
require a Roadmap, see below.

The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.


> > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > some time.
>
>
> How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not
> like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved
> *the
> scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
>

Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.

>
> Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that
> we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought
> for it.
>
> To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
>

My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
this year?

>
>
> > In the middle ground, there is the
> > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan
> > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging
> > by these events.
> >
>
> I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so
> far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
>

Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and
it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused to
even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.


   1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
   lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
   2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too
   difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
   3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to
   admit that it has not yet got round to doing it
   4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Romaine Wiki
On every continent there are likely risks and we should be aware of them.

Copyrights issues are also something to look out for.

In the Netherlands the telecom enforcement agency is pretty strict and
active in enforcing net neutrality.

But yes, risks are spread over the world.

Where the servers are located I do not mind that much, but spread around
the world seems to be required to spread the risk.

Romaine


Op zaterdag 28 januari 2017 heeft Vi to  het
volgende geschreven:

> Actually some parties might bring EU to low standards of freedom of
> expression.
> For what concerns Wikimedia, I fear more lobbying about copyright related
> legislation or about net neutrality than USA turning into a dictatorship.
> I'm not afraid of a complete service disruption but instead of things
> getting more and more complicate in a globalized World being broken up. We
> rely upon a level of freedom to move people and data (mainly among the two
> shorelines of the Atlantic ocean) which has no precedents in human history.
> Offline backups -to renew on yearly basis- are not so expensive to be
> physically sent to chapters, or at least a certain number of chapters
> meeting some requirements (e.g. a physical location, some IT, etc.). It
> would instead be *hard* to rebuild an infrastructure almost from the
> scratch.
> What puzzles me is our ability to nullify impact of end of USA safe harbor
> or (possible) or, for example, Netherlands ceasing net neutrality
> (currently almost impossible) or similar kind of changes in any Country,
> which doesn't imply dictatorship but still will have a significantly impact
> over our operations.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-01-28 13:07 GMT+01:00 Romaine Wiki  >:
>
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > You describe what I tried to say: threats to the environment in what
> > Wikimedia operates.
> >
> > In the Netherlands there has been a government based on populism (with
> > Geert Wilders) but the effects were very limited. The same in other EU
> > countries. Political parties and political leaders in Europe are aware of
> > the world wars that took place and are not out of the minds, so extremes
> > are much less extreme. Even in comparison with the US now less extreme.
> >
> > Like the archives of Alexandria got lost due being stored in one place,
> let
> > us not make that mistake again. Whatever the cause of troubles is,
> nature,
> > humans, fire, etc.
> >
> > To me the most safe option would be to have a back up at every continent,
> > thus the risks are spread.
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> > Op zaterdag 28 januari 2017 heeft Nathan  > het volgende
> > geschreven:
> >
> > > Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the
> > turn
> > > to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
> > > Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
> > > assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
> > > Perhaps the Netherlands is a good alternative, although Geert Wilders
> is
> > > quite popular there... The United Kingdom, perhaps? Yet with Brexit and
> > > UKIP, one wonders how safe Wikimedia would be there. Perhaps France, if
> > not
> > > for Marine Le Pen... This is more challenging than I expected. Where
> will
> > > we find some place that is protected from the pernicious threats that
> > beset
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Romaine Wiki  
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Today I was reading in the (international) news about websites with
> > > > knowledge on the topic of climate change disappear from the internet
> as
> > > > result of the Trump administration. The second thing I read is that
> > > before
> > > > something can be published about this topic, the government needs to
> > > > approve this.
> > > >
> > > > Do you realise what the right word for this is? censorship.
> > > > Even if it is only partially.
> > > >
> > > > Luckily there are many scientists working on getting all the data
> > abroad,
> > > > out of the US to ensure the research data is saved, including on
> > servers
> > > in
> > > > the Netherlands where Trump (hopefully) has no reach.
> > > >
> > > > In the past week I was reading about the Internet Archive
> organisation,
> > > who
> > > > is making a back up in Canada because of the Trump administration. I
> > did
> > > > not understood this, you may call me naive, but now I do understand,
> > > > apparently they have some visionary people at the Internet Archive.
> > > >
> > > > I miss a good answer to this situation from the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > Trump is now promoting harassment and disrespect, already for some
> > time,
> > > >
> > > > What signal is given to the rest of the world if an America based
> > > > organisation is spreading the thought of a harassment 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.

It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
What community?
Thanks,
GerardM

Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors 

> Anna
>
>
> > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> >
>
> Got it, thanks for asking.
>
>
> >
> > > So for example, in the
> > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> the
> > > software roadmap would be effective.
> >
> >
> > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> > upon
> > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> >
>
> I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
> ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
> of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
> would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
> by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .
> This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
> require a Roadmap, see below.
>
> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
>
>
> > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > some time.
> >
> >
> > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> not
> > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> achieved
> > *the
> > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> >
>
> Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
> transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
>
> >
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> that
> > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> fought
> > for it.
> >
> > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> >
>
> My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
> lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
> changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
> this year?
>
> >
> >
> > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
> plan
> > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
> hanging
> > > by these events.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> > mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so
> > far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
> times.
> >
>
> Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and
> it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused to
> even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
> can think of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Damon Sicore
As long as humanity maintains the concept of non-citizen, global suffering will 
prevail.  

I believe the only way to address backup and privacy concerns is to permanently 
dissolve all current systems relying on the infrastructure that corporations 
and governments can touch or see and move to something where absolutely no 
single entity would be able to control any other entity in any way whatsoever. 

However, this goes against some of our fundamental principles and values of 
Wikipedia because our communities embrace authoritarian and autocratic 
processes which enable censorship and persecution. We control what people say 
every time we edit the corpus. Another way to convey my point:  Eliminating 
being a corpus eliminates censorship.   

Also, as WMF has experienced, there is no way you can talk people out of 
powerful positions.  Asking people to stop their behavior, which is enabled by 
a power we give them,  will not produce the desired result. 

Damon

https://damon.sicore.com
Flicked by head hugging plastic rectangular zero and one signal emitter. 

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John  wrote:
> 
> United States
> governmental agencies sharing information about non-citizens with each
> other. In the context of the actual document it is referencing sharing data
> about non-citizens who are not legal residents of the United States, who
> are illegally in the country.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Craig Franklin
Hi Pine,

Thanks for raising this task.  There is more to a disaster plan than just
smuggling backups of the content itself out though.  The projects have
grown to a size now where they cannot be run by some guy out of his garage
using a backup; we need to think about how we can move or protect things
like server operations, organisational support, and other "real world"
activities in the event that it's no longer possible to continue with
business as usual.

As I said, I hope that there is a document somewhere internally within the
Foundation where they have considered this scenario and how they'd react to
it.  Now might be a good time for them to dust off that document and review
it, just in case.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 28 January 2017 at 18:52, Pine W  wrote:

> I have created a Phabricator task here:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156544
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-28 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Yes. You are right. But having a strategy starts with basics. Having full
backups and moving them of the premises. The next part, having a working
environment is a next step.

Did you consider what it means when a government takes hold of the domain?
How we are to change the registration so that it points to a different IP
address. The point is that when we need this we are in real hot water and
we have to prepare for this.

So let us have a backup and then take the next step; know where it is and
what scenarios there are we want to prepare for.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 January 2017 at 02:51, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> Thanks for raising this task.  There is more to a disaster plan than just
> smuggling backups of the content itself out though.  The projects have
> grown to a size now where they cannot be run by some guy out of his garage
> using a backup; we need to think about how we can move or protect things
> like server operations, organisational support, and other "real world"
> activities in the event that it's no longer possible to continue with
> business as usual.
>
> As I said, I hope that there is a document somewhere internally within the
> Foundation where they have considered this scenario and how they'd react to
> it.  Now might be a good time for them to dust off that document and review
> it, just in case.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
> On 28 January 2017 at 18:52, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I have created a Phabricator task here:
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156544
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,