Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software
I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :) Michel On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software
On Jun 25, 2012 5:22 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List? FSF are a partner of ours, so I guess it is on topic. I found it interesting. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia founder's petition: Stop extradition of O'Dwyer
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolution of political battles (this one on piracy). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition This is currently first on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (UK news but I've seen it on TV while they were showing headlines on Euro 2012...). The petition text is at http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard Richard O'Dwyer is a 24 year old British student at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK. He is facing extradition to the USA and up to ten years in prison, for creating a website – TVShack.net – which linked (similar to a search-engine) to places to watch TV and movies online. O'Dwyer is not a US citizen, he's lived in the UK all his life, his site was not hosted there, and most of his users were not from the US. America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil. The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement. As citizens we must stand up for our rights online. When operating his site, Richard O'Dwyer always did his best to play by the rules: on the few occasions he received requests to remove content from copyright holders, he complied. His site hosted links, not copyrighted content, and these were submitted by users. Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose. But that does not mean that copyright can or should be unlimited. It does not mean that we should abandon time-honoured moral and legal principles to allow endless encroachments on our civil liberties in the interests of the moguls of Hollywood. Richard O'Dwyer is the human face of the battle between the content industry and the interests of the general public. Earlier this year, in the fight against the anti-copyright bills SOPA and PIPA, the public won its first big victory. This could be our second. This is why I am petitioning the UK's Home Secretary Theresa May to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer. I hope you will join me. - Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder We only have an English Wikipedia article about O'Dwyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias
Hi all, I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia (so called double language links). There are not that many of them (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here: http://simia.net/languagelinks/ Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in certain reports and also in the respective export I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place, but that list looks rather dead. Cheers, Denny -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias
Hi Denny, This is a really interesting list. Looking at the Hungarian list, I find that in many instances the duplicate interwiki link is actually commented out (in the form of !-- Source: [[en: something]] -- or !-- wrong interwikis: [[en: ..] [[fr: ..]] --), and not real duplicate links. (In some cases there are indeed duplicate links, where one concept covers two concepts in other languages.) Maybe you could refine your search algorithm to exclude commented out links, and improve your listing page by including not only the second interwiki link found for a given language, but also the first one, so it is easier to assess without having to check the article pages or source codes? In any case, the village pumps might be a good place to post a link to the lists. The Global message delivery system might help you in that: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_message_delivery Best regards, Bence On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi all, I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia (so called double language links). There are not that many of them (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here: http://simia.net/languagelinks/ Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in certain reports and also in the respective export I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place, but that list looks rather dead. Cheers, Denny -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias
Hi Denny, TL;DR: It's a very important question, but don't worry about it too much. Just do Wikidata well as it is currently planned. Now, the full reply. I wrote a bit of an essay about it in 2008: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tips_for_resolving_interwiki_conflicts I also started a page to coordinate the efforts to resolve such conflicts: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_synchronization It started out nicely, but didn't really scale, so I had no choice but to neglect it. There are two main reasons that it didn't scale: 1. Fixing interlanguage links conflicts is an exhausting manual process. The Interlanguage extension or Wikidata are supposed to make it centralized and easier. 2. Almost all Wikipedians are very, very reluctant about doing anything outside their home projects. So, Wikidata is supposed to resolve #1. Once it becomes active, #2 will kick in again. At this stage, all I can say is our old motto: Be Bold. There's a rumor about me, which says that I know a lot of languages. I don't; I'm just bold about trying to edit Wikipedias in languages that I don't know. Everybody can do it. Most of the time it turns out to be correct and people don't complain. Trying to talk to people about this on village pumps and using global message delivery is not very efficient. In many languages, even in some major ones, the village pumps are not as active as in English, and even when they are, people very often ignore messages in English. Anyway, my proposal is this: * As discussed at bug 15607 [1], the best strategy for rolling out centralized language links is to enable them in articles without conflicts and to leave articles with conflicts without any change at first. * After initial roll-out, a list of conflicts for every project should be created. That is, there should be one list of articles with conflicts in the English Wikipedia, another list for the Hebrew Wikipedia, another one for Croatian, etc. This will make it relatively more accessible for people, because it will look like a problem in their project. Most people like solving local problems more than global problems.[2] * Profit. I believe that this crowdsourcing model may work. It won't be immediately perfect or very fast. It's just a sensible start. [1] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15607 [2] A technical implementation comment about the list of pages with conflicts: it will be most efficient, if it will be implemented as a special page in each project. If updating it immediately is too burdensome in terms of performance, it can be updated in batches every week or so. The reason it should be a special page is that it will look like an integrated site feature and that it will be easy to localize its interface. 2012/6/25 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de: Hi all, I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia (so called double language links). There are not that many of them (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here: http://simia.net/languagelinks/ Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in certain reports and also in the respective export I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place, but that list looks rather dead. Cheers, Denny -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias
Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going through and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do that, that should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki links. I second the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could be re-run to exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful as is. There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 1-to-1 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and Magni]] unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to languages that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's not clear what to do about these cases. Best, Mark On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: Hi all, I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia (so called double language links). There are not that many of them (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here: http://simia.net/languagelinks/ Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in certain reports and also in the respective export I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place, but that list looks rather dead. Cheers, Denny ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Language links and double language links on the Wikipedias
Hello, So may I guess that double links are usually the result of a Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt, he simply put in the language links for two different articles? And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the knowledge in different ways, which could jeopardize the whole goal of Wikidata unifiying the language links? Kind regards Ziko 2012/6/25 Delirium delir...@hackish.org: Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going through and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do that, that should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki links. I second the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could be re-run to exclude commented-out links, but the list is still useful as is. There are some difficult cases, though, when languages make different choices on how to group subjects, so the articles aren't actually in 1-to-1 correspondence. For example, the English article [[en: Móði and Magni]] unsurprisingly has two outgoing interwiki links, when linking to languages that split them, such as [[da:Magni]] and [[da:Modi]]. It's not clear what to do about these cases. Best, Mark On 6/25/12 12:29 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: Hi all, I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia (so called double language links). There are not that many of them (about 19,000 in total), split by language, all available here: http://simia.net/languagelinks/ Double language links are not errors per se, but they contain a few nuisances * they lead to two links in the language links list that just look the same (you have to hover over them to see that they link to different languages), which is not really optimal from the user experience side * they are not saved in the langlinks table and thus are ignored in certain reports and also in the respective export I am not sure how to reach out to the respective Wikipedia communities, or if I should at all. Should I post to their respective version of the village pump? Remembering from the time I was active on the Croatian Wikipedia, I would have appreciated that list to check the entries. I reckoned the wikipedia-l list would be the right place, but that list looks rather dead. Cheers, Denny ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC. Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled then. But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside of that narrow window. So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need to engage people who aren't available during normal business hours throughout the Western world. At this point, office hours have essentially become the same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever the topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm misunderstanding. I'm glad you brought this up Risker, but to be fair, Siebrand can't speak for everyone scheduling office hours, since there is no one person who coordinates them all -- each team is responsible for their own, and some are not associated with the WMF. Anyway, I'm willing to test out doing this at a different time that's not during North American working hours. The editor engagement experiments team is due for another office hours. How does 10:00 UTC next Monday sound? Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012
Hi Pine, Reviving this thread because it looks like your questions haven't been answered... On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Erik, Thanks for replying. Let me make sure that I understand. The graph at http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors isn’t affected by the bug, and we still believe that we have a declining number of new editors per month. However, the graphs for the number of active editors may be wrong, since edit counts may be wrong. Is this correct? The bulk of my previous comments would stand even with upward revisions to the counts of active editors. WMF is investing multiple staff and what I perceive to be a significant amount of financial resources with the goal of increasing the number of active editors, and the statistics related to these efforts are relevant to the strategic plan. I believe that monthly updates would be appropriate and welcome. If you're asking why we haven't hooked our monthly quantitative metrics up with the work we're doing on editor retention, the answer is that we're in the process of transitioning from a system where the metrics were generated by hand to one that's streamlined and automated, which is technically complex and will take a bit of setup time. The ultimate goal of automation is being able to do exactly what you're asking, though, so I think it'll be worth the wait :) But yes, you're absolutely right -- we need to be sure to include monthly updates on all our editor engagement related activities. I'm on the newly formed editor engagement experiments team, and it looks like our activities for last month were not listed on this report for some reason (probably because of aforementioned newness). That's a really unfortunate oversight on our end, and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. The super-condensed version: we hired two new team members, prioritized our first group of experiments, and spec'ed out our first experimenthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Timestamp_position_modificationfor launch in June. In the meantime, if you or anyone else is interested in our work and want to watch it as it unfolds, you can watchlist our documentation hubs on English Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:E3and/or Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/E3. Of course, there are other engineering teams working on editor engagement, too -- I don't want to speak for them, but I will say that especially for things like the visual editor, it's difficult to report easily digestible monthly progress, since it's a much longer term project. Editor engagement experiments should have something to report every month, though; that's the point of rapid iteration! So thank you for pushing us on this, and don't hesitate to get in touch with me or Steven Walling if you have more questions. Best, Maryana Thanks, Pine -Original Message- From: Erik Zachte ezac...@wikimedia.org To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012 Message-ID: 004b01cd4cca$1ae54430$50afcc90$@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It may well be that the trends are distorted due to major bug in wikistats. That bug has been isolated, but we need 7-10 days to regenerate all reports. See also http://infodisiac.com/blog/2012/06/wikistats-editor-counts-are-broken/ Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience. Erik Zachte -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ENWP Pine Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:20 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2012 Tilman, Thanks for the report. I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for June), these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high priority effort for WMF, it seems to involve a fairly significant number of WMF FTEs and LTEs, and I think it is of interest to the global Wikimedia community. Personally I am very concerned about the continuing slide in the number of active editors. There are many areas on ENWP where having a few more active editors would be very helpful, and I speculate that other projects would also appreciate having additional active editors. My concerns are illustrated beautifully on some of the graphs here: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors;, http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors;, and http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target;. I would like to hear more about what progress is being made to improve the trends. We heard about the Teahouse and new initiatives for Arabic Wikipedia, which are very good, and I especially appreciated the detailed reports on the Teahouse pilot that were sent to ENWP
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC. Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled then. But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside of that narrow window. So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need to engage people who aren't available during normal business hours throughout the Western world. At this point, office hours have essentially become the same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever the topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm misunderstanding. I'm glad you brought this up Risker, but to be fair, Siebrand can't speak for everyone scheduling office hours, since there is no one person who coordinates them all -- each team is responsible for their own, and some are not associated with the WMF. Anyway, I'm willing to test out doing this at a different time that's not during North American working hours. The editor engagement experiments team is due for another office hours. How does 10:00 UTC next Monday sound? Well, let's see - that's 7 a.m. Eastern time, and 4 a.m. Pacific, so it's certainly not North American business hours. Perhaps the bigger question is who the target audience is, and whether or not you're likely to attract it during that time. Now, it's entirely possible that the WMF staff and those of other projects using the usual timeslot have decided that their target audience is the people who are available during that timeslot (I don't think Wikidata's ever had an office hours outside of the same slot, for example). However, I know that a very significant percentage of Wikimedians are not able to participate during those hours, and the effect is strongly exclusionary. In many cases, those office hours are really the only way to keep current and participate in the discussion of various projects, unless one has a direct pipeline to one or more of the project co-ordinators. I'm the world's worst wikitable creator, and even I can see how these constant overlaps can be avoided by creating a table on Meta to map out which office hours will occur when and having rules about how many office hours can be in a given two- or three-hour period. For example, the rule could be only 50% of office hours can start between 1600 and 1830 each month or no more than two office hours in a row can start between 1600 and 1830, if you're the third one then you have to choose another time, or unless you are trying to reach a specific identified target audience, half of any project's office hours must be held outside of North American/European business hours of 0800 UTC to 2000 UTC. There are sometimes good reasons for holding office hours consistently at a specific time, most particularly if there is a desire to draw in editors from a certain geographic area, or if that is the time that a specific language group finds most convenient. But if the subject is intended to have global effects, then there needs to be variety in the timing so that a wider range of voices can participate. If it's something primarily focused at English Wikipedia, the office hours have to be late enough for North Americans to attend outside of business hours, at least some of the time, and some thought should also be given to ensuring our ANZA editors can also be included, at least some of the time. Now, none of this is specifically about Siebrand's office hours. It's about the fact that this consistent scheduling implies nobody's interested in hearing from those who aren't available during the San Francisco mornings. Best, Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC
I think the top slot in the poll I took was Saturdays, either 11AM to noon SF time (6PM-7PM UTC, going from memory) or noon to one SF time (7PM-8PM UTC). I am totally fine with either of those times, and so I will volunteer to do my next office hours in one of those slots. Normally I'm scheduled via, and accompanied by, Steven or sometimes Philippe. I'd like Steven to get me scheduled (please), but Steven you don't need to come moderate: I can probably just handle it by myself :-) So, Wikimedia Foundation staff can turn up if they're online and free and feel like it, but nobody should feel compelled to attend just because they're on the staff. Like I said, I don't mind doing it -- arguably it's easier for me than squeezing it into the middle of other meetings. But I don't think the value-add of other staff being there necessitates them breaking into the middle of their weekends. Hope this makes sense for people. If we draw a different crowd that hasn't otherwise been able to attend, we can figure out how to do more of it in a way that works for staff -- meaning, we can lean on weekends when people are travelling for work anyway, or are for some reason available and game. Thanks, Sue On Jun 25, 2012 7:34 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's see - that's 7 a.m. Eastern time, and 4 a.m. Pacific, so it's certainly not North American business hours. Perhaps the bigger question is who the target audience is, and whether or not you're likely to attract it during that time. I'm sorry, I forgot to check a box on one of those stupid time converters. I meant 22:00 UTC that day. That's late afternoon SF time and the early evening for the rest of the continent. The poll Sue took also suggested maybe we should try holding some on Saturdays. That might not be preferable for all staffers, but some of us don't mind. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
