Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

MZMcBride, 24/10/2013 05:47:

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.


Says who? I've been trying to get a clear answer to this question for the
past few days.


Seconded. The last message by legals on the talk page doesn't address 
this root issue.



The access to non-public info policy is the Board's
creation and the Board's prerogative. Is the Board interested in updating
this policy? If not, then politely: why are we having this conversation?
If so, why and in what ways would the Board like to see the policy updated?


Apparently, legals say that the current policy is too flexible for the 
board to have really meant approving it, so of course the board will 
like to change his mind and make it much stricter, while if one wanted 
to keep it as flexible as it is now one would need the board to change 
his mind. Hmm.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[MZMcBride]

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
>might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
>information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
>handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.

Says who? I've been trying to get a clear answer to this question for the
past few days. The access to non-public info policy is the Board's
creation and the Board's prerogative. Is the Board interested in updating
this policy? If not, then politely: why are we having this conversation?
If so, why and in what ways would the Board like to see the policy updated?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Generation Wikipedia: Summer Youth Conference Proposal

[Jake Orlowitz]

Hi folks! For the next round of Individual Engagement Grants from the WMF,
Keilana and myself are proposing ''Generation Wikipedia'', a pilot,
week-long summer conference for young Wikipedians and Wikimedians from
around the globe, to develop skills, leadership, and community in a safe
environment. Please come and check it out and share your thoughts.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Generation_Wikipedia

Cheers, Jake (Ocaasi)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Sydney]

I can think of three times that people with access to private information 
misled the community about their identity and it would have been better if 
there were records showing who they were. Being able to audit the records for 
false documentation would have been useful in two and probably would have 
prevented the other. 

Sydney 


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2013, at 19:01, Newyorkbrad  wrote:

> Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
> thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
> since nothing is ever done with the identification data.  Can anyone think
> of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
> proposed policy had been in place at the relevant time?  (I myself can
> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> 
> Newyorkbrad
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
>> 
>> The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
>> certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term.  :-)
>> 
>> Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
>> might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
>> information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
>> handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.
>> 
>> It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition
>> think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through
>> feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to
>> abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward,
>> oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing.  If
>> they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need
>> to resign.
>> 
>> As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active
>> members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains
>> sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen.
>> (We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped -
>> collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but
>> that's a different issue).
>> 
>> -- Coren / Marc
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[George Herbert]

Fluff-

When crazies go crazy
> about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office
> isn't that outlandish for some of them.


It will not happen without staff being fully aware, and an intruder knowing
which cabinet to break into without significant effort is extremely
unlikely, would require either cooperation of an insider and/or office
visits while acting considerably saner (at least; if not much more than
that).

Even if the risk is nonzero, the risk to me that it will happen secretly
(as opposed to, "X broke in but the SFPD arrested them with a handful of
docs including your ID photocopies") is very low.

I am much more worried about accidental unrecognized leaks of digital data.
 MUCH.




On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as " The physical handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper",
> well... Considering that some of our less sane problematic users have, if
> I'm remembering correctly, shown up at the WMF office itself and would have
> loved to get their hands on the real-life documents of our
> advanced-privilege users, I'm not all that confident that *any *storage on
> the WMF premises, short of a vault, is adequate. When crazies go crazy
> about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office
> isn't that outlandish for some of them.
>
> -Fluff
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:21 PM, George Herbert  >wrote:
>
> > Going back to the 2011 discussions on otrs lists, a flag was raised that
> > challenged whether the WMF had sufficiently secure servers to host copies
> > of ID documents that might be electronically submitted, including
> > sufficient firewalling and/or airgapping, internal access controls, etc.
> >
> > My impression was that once that was raised as a detailed concern, the
> push
> > died off rapidly, but I may be misremembering.
> >
> > Let me now ask - Can the WMF either publicly or privately (I live in the
> SF
> > Bay Area and can come over and talk) provide enough detailed assurance as
> > to the digital medium storage plan for these IDs?
> >
> > This is enough data for someone to do an identity theft with.  The
> physical
> > handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper (locked cabinet or the
> like
> > requires a physical office intrusion).  The electronic...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Rschen7754  > >wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking for myself, I have no problems with the overall idea, and I
> > doubt
> > > that a lot of the others who have signed the petition do either.
> > >
> > > The problem is in the details of how it is implemented, and that
> > > appropriate safeguards are not written into place to protect the
> privacy
> > > and legal rights of those who (re)identify. I know some European users
> > have
> > > raised concerns about how the overall policy does not work for them
> > and/or
> > > would cause them to break the law. I don't believe that they should
> have
> > to
> > > stand alone.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Rschen7754
> > > rschen7754.w...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> > > >> (I myself can
> > > >> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> > > >
> > > > I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost
> > certainly
> > > > the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the
> > dissuasive
> > > > effect alone might have made a difference.
> > > >
> > > > But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus
> > on
> > > > accountability than over any particular incident.
> > > >
> > > > -- Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
__

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Katherine Casey]

As far as " The physical handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper",
well... Considering that some of our less sane problematic users have, if
I'm remembering correctly, shown up at the WMF office itself and would have
loved to get their hands on the real-life documents of our
advanced-privilege users, I'm not all that confident that *any *storage on
the WMF premises, short of a vault, is adequate. When crazies go crazy
about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office
isn't that outlandish for some of them.

-Fluff


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:21 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> Going back to the 2011 discussions on otrs lists, a flag was raised that
> challenged whether the WMF had sufficiently secure servers to host copies
> of ID documents that might be electronically submitted, including
> sufficient firewalling and/or airgapping, internal access controls, etc.
>
> My impression was that once that was raised as a detailed concern, the push
> died off rapidly, but I may be misremembering.
>
> Let me now ask - Can the WMF either publicly or privately (I live in the SF
> Bay Area and can come over and talk) provide enough detailed assurance as
> to the digital medium storage plan for these IDs?
>
> This is enough data for someone to do an identity theft with.  The physical
> handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper (locked cabinet or the like
> requires a physical office intrusion).  The electronic...
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Rschen7754  >wrote:
>
> > Speaking for myself, I have no problems with the overall idea, and I
> doubt
> > that a lot of the others who have signed the petition do either.
> >
> > The problem is in the details of how it is implemented, and that
> > appropriate safeguards are not written into place to protect the privacy
> > and legal rights of those who (re)identify. I know some European users
> have
> > raised concerns about how the overall policy does not work for them
> and/or
> > would cause them to break the law. I don't believe that they should have
> to
> > stand alone.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rschen7754
> > rschen7754.w...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> > >> (I myself can
> > >> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> > >
> > > I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost
> certainly
> > > the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the
> dissuasive
> > > effect alone might have made a difference.
> > >
> > > But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus
> on
> > > accountability than over any particular incident.
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Michelle Paulson]

Hi All,

I wanted to let you know that I have posted a
responseto
the recent feedback we have received and very much look forward to
hearing your thoughts on the ideas proposed.  I also wanted to thank you
all for the feedback over the past week and a half.  It really helped us
understand your concerns and go back to the drawing board -- this
discussion has really reemphasized the value of community consultations
periods to me.  In the end, we want to do what works for the community and
the movement.

Best,

Michelle


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> > (I myself can
> > think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
>
> I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
> the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive
> effect alone might have made a difference.
>
> But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus on
> accountability than over any particular incident.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Michelle Paulson
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
mpaul...@wikimedia.org
415.839.6885 ext. 6608 (Office)
415.882.0495 (Fax)




NOTICE: *This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only
serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not
give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members,
volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[George Herbert]

Going back to the 2011 discussions on otrs lists, a flag was raised that
challenged whether the WMF had sufficiently secure servers to host copies
of ID documents that might be electronically submitted, including
sufficient firewalling and/or airgapping, internal access controls, etc.

My impression was that once that was raised as a detailed concern, the push
died off rapidly, but I may be misremembering.

Let me now ask - Can the WMF either publicly or privately (I live in the SF
Bay Area and can come over and talk) provide enough detailed assurance as
to the digital medium storage plan for these IDs?

This is enough data for someone to do an identity theft with.  The physical
handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper (locked cabinet or the like
requires a physical office intrusion).  The electronic...



On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Rschen7754 wrote:

> Speaking for myself, I have no problems with the overall idea, and I doubt
> that a lot of the others who have signed the petition do either.
>
> The problem is in the details of how it is implemented, and that
> appropriate safeguards are not written into place to protect the privacy
> and legal rights of those who (re)identify. I know some European users have
> raised concerns about how the overall policy does not work for them and/or
> would cause them to break the law. I don't believe that they should have to
> stand alone.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rschen7754
> rschen7754.w...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>
> > On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> >> (I myself can
> >> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> >
> > I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
> > the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive
> > effect alone might have made a difference.
> >
> > But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus on
> > accountability than over any particular incident.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Rschen7754]

Speaking for myself, I have no problems with the overall idea, and I doubt that 
a lot of the others who have signed the petition do either.

The problem is in the details of how it is implemented, and that appropriate 
safeguards are not written into place to protect the privacy and legal rights 
of those who (re)identify. I know some European users have raised concerns 
about how the overall policy does not work for them and/or would cause them to 
break the law. I don't believe that they should have to stand alone.

Thanks,

Rschen7754
rschen7754.w...@gmail.com



On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> (I myself can
>> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> 
> I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
> the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive
> effect alone might have made a difference.
> 
> But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus on
> accountability than over any particular incident.
> 
> -- Marc
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[David Gerard]

On 24 October 2013 00:07, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

>> (I myself can
>> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)

> I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
> the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive
> effect alone might have made a difference.
> But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus on
> accountability than over any particular incident.


I'm thinking of a case, but I can't see how this would have dissuaded
the individual in question, who was almost obsessive.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> (I myself can
> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)

I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
the same); but I can think of a couple of scenarios where the dissuasive
effect alone might have made a difference.

But my understanding is that this is prompted by a more serious focus on
accountability than over any particular incident.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Newyorkbrad]

Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
since nothing is ever done with the identification data.  Can anyone think
of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
proposed policy had been in place at the relevant time?  (I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)

Newyorkbrad


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
>
> The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
> certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term.  :-)
>
> Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
> might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
> information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
> handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.
>
> It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition
> think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through
> feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to
> abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward,
> oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing.  If
> they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need
> to resign.
>
> As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active
> members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains
> sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen.
> (We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped -
> collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but
> that's a different issue).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.

The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term.  :-)

Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.

It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition
think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through
feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to
abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward,
oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing.  If
they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need
to resign.

As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active
members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains
sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen.
(We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped -
collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but
that's a different issue).

-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

[Theo10011]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

> Orsolya was Deputy Program Chair for WM 2012.
>
> And James was the lead for WLM 2012.
>

James was the lead for Wiki Loves Monument too?


>
> So it's correct no matter what :)
>

-Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33:

 From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or
chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community
member, I tend to see the WMF as "special"


Note that I wasn't saying it isn't "special" in some way, I was just 
saying that *that* argument didn't IMHO add good reasons for the WMF 
being special as regards this specific point, i.e. using a process which 
the WMF itself has created and which the WMF supposedly believes useful, 
given how much it has invested in it.



in this sense because it
already has a Board of Trustees that in a fairly reasonable way
represent the community/movement,


This argument is a slippery slope and for this reason I was not touching 
it. Anyway, note that the most voted elected member of the FDC has 
received more votes than the most voted WMF board elected member. ;-)


Nemo


who I trust to make decisions on
funding priorities. Therefore it's not clear to me why *another*
advisory board should be a second layer of bureaucracy evaluating its
budget proposals. They are already evaluated by the Trustees primarily,
and by the community as a whole secondarily, which seems like enough
oversight. If the community disagrees with the WMF's direction or
priorities, they can vote for different trustees in the next election,
or otherwise suggest changes in its structure or membership. But in
general I trust their judgment on how to allocate the Foundation's money
in accordance with the mission.

Best,
Mark


___
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] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from
it.

I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a
little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the
FDC.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak :

> hi Theo,
>
>
> Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
> > as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
> > footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
> > concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF
> board
> > members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however,
> the
> > WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few
> > iterations and external scrutiny.
> >
>
> You seem to live a false assumption that the FDC does not have elected
> members at all. It does, and their proportion is going to grow in the
> incoming years. But I don't think it matters, anyway - what is more
> important, is the role of the FDC. It is not a decisive body, but an
> advisory one. In all major financial decisions it is good to have a chain
> of decision process, just to avoid groupthink. Moreover, it is quite a lot
> of work, the Board would unlikely be able to tackle on their own, with all
> other responsibilities.
>
>
>
> >   I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an
> >> urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters).
> >
> >
> > I quite believe the opposite might be true.
> >
>
> Basing on?... So far in two rounds we have made some recommendations, which
> we had every right to assume that would not have been the most popular ones
> under the sun.
>
>
> > So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect
> > the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and
> > hilarity will ensue. '
> >
>
> If you're saying that the FDC may disagree with the Board and vice-versa,
> that's 100% true. I'm not sure if I would call this a conflict. Drawing
> different conclusions from the same data is not unprecedented in financial
> evaluations. The only thing the FDC and the Board will definitely want to
> avoid (each on their own shift) is to make mistakes. It is actually quite
> good, in my opinion, that there are two stages in this process:
> recommendation and an actual decision. If the Board disagrees with the FDC
> and makes a better, different decision, I think it would be a success of
> this model, rather than its failure.
>
> All in all the Board is accountable to the movement and has actual,
> fiduciary responsibility. Again, you perceive it as a flaw that an advisory
> committee makes recommendations, although is not empowered to enforce them.
> I respect this view, but such an organizational structure solution is quite
> common and your critique applies to the whole concept of advisory
> committees.
>
> I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the
> > other half to some participation from the larger community - be it
> through
> > an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy
> > of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board.
> so,
> > another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to
> comment,
> > just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their
> > way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and
> > consuming a lot of time and resources.
> >
>
> I'm assuming good faith, but your advice and the conclusion seem to be
> contradictory (you say that we should resign, and as a result a new body
> would be created, but it would be identical to the Board). The whole
> purpose of the FDC is to have DIFFERENT people working as a committee and
> advising to the Board. What I read from your comments is that you believe
> that a two-stage decisionmaking process is dangerous, because it may bring
> conflict. Perhaps we simply disagree here - in my view it is better to have
> two different bodies look carefully at proposals worth millions of dollars,
> rather than to rush them through the Board (which, as already noted, has
> other duties, too and would not possibly be able to spend as much time on
> this process, as we do).
>
>
>
> > As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their
> home
> >> chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement
> in
> >> the boards.
> >>
> >
> > Those are some high standards right there.
> >
>
> :) I'm assuming your comment was sarcastic. Any suggestions for systemic
> improvement are welcome.
>
>
>
> > I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of
> > the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current
> > members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within
> > that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Delirium]

On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative 
of the

larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that
circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being
representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like
gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active 
community

of all.

Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual
community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its
formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go
around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and
comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might 
have

even played a part in...whatever this is.


I'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do 
such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, 
how do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared 
to the other entities' funding?


From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or 
chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community 
member, I tend to see the WMF as "special" in this sense because it 
already has a Board of Trustees that in a fairly reasonable way 
represent the community/movement, who I trust to make decisions on 
funding priorities. Therefore it's not clear to me why *another* 
advisory board should be a second layer of bureaucracy evaluating its 
budget proposals. They are already evaluated by the Trustees primarily, 
and by the community as a whole secondarily, which seems like enough 
oversight. If the community disagrees with the WMF's direction or 
priorities, they can vote for different trustees in the next election, 
or otherwise suggest changes in its structure or membership. But in 
general I trust their judgment on how to allocate the Foundation's money 
in accordance with the mission.


Best,
Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

[Fæ]

Congratulations to those involved in kicking off this committee.
Though we should probably avoid setting up too many committees I know
this part of the Wikimedia movement's decision making and learning
process has been talked about for quite some time and I'm sure that
the WM 2014 UK team will appreciate your support.

Knowing quite a few of the names on the initial committee list, I see
a great bunch of committed and enthusiastic Wikimedians. :-)

I suggest that the process for selecting new committee members and how
people might get nominated is spelled out soon so that we can see how
this group will stay open and welcoming. I look forward to the
benefits of the resources, experience and advice, which you are all
committed to delivering.

Cheers,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

[Orsolya Gyenes]

No, it's correct. James personally wanted me to represent WM2012.

Best,

*~Orsolya*


2013/10/23 MZMcBride 

> Ellie Young wrote:
> > • Orsolya Virág Gyenes (representing WM 2012)
> > • James Hare
>
> I think your label may be switched here?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Delirium]

On 10/23/13 11:10 AM, Andre Engels wrote:

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu  wrote:



Same argument in
different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is

also

no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.

If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.


Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be
credited".



Especially since it's difficult to do that accurately using a 
git-blame-style method. We can't use only count text that's persisted 
into the final version (in the style of WikiTrust's attribution), 
because if author A contributes a paragraph, and later editors 
completely rework the paragraph for wording, clarity, order, etc. to the 
extent that none of the original words remain verbatim, the final result 
may still be co-authored by A, both legally and morally speaking: you 
can do quite a bit of rewriting of a contribution while keeping the gist 
of it intact.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andre Engels, 23/10/2013 11:10:

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu  wrote:


If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.



Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be
credited".


Indeed. It's just a feature request, and an ancient one: 
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2994


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Strainu  wrote:


> > Same argument in
> > different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
> > from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
> > not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is
> also
> > no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
> > authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.
>
> If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
> content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
> would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.
>

Not necessary - "need not be credited" does not imply "should not be
credited".


> >
> > Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> >> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> >> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> >> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> >> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> >> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
> >>
> >
> > Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with
> > another pseudonym? I know of no such case.
>
> Is this even possible? I only have the rights to do this on ro.wp and
> I see no option to replace the name with a pseudonym. I just select
> "Delete the username or IP address" and add a reason and the history
> shows the text "username deleted" crossed. And on the pdf export, I'm
> positive there is no pseudonym used.
>

I think changing the username has the desired effect, I am not 100% sure
though.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Strainu]

2013/10/23 Marco Chiesa :
> Actually, following the same philosophy, one should wonder whether the
> person reverting from version B to version C should be kept in the
> contributor's list. At the end of the day, version C is an exact copy of
> version A (i.e. no creative input of editor C), and version B is a
> derivative version of version A, but versions C+1 and following are not
> derivative versions of B, only of A and previous.

That was actually one of my arguments, yes. But I think this is more
on the moral side of things.

2013/10/23 Andre Engels :
> No, the reverted text is derived from A, not from B. That there has been a
> version in between at the same place does not matter.

Doesn't it? The reverter might not even be aware that he's reverting
something (if, for instance, B was just random letter deletions and
the author of C thinks these are honest mistakes, he's clearly working
on version B)

> Same argument in
> different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
> from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
> not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is also
> no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
> authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.

If we go this way, then none of the authors who added legitimate
content in the past but had it deleted later should be credited. We
would need a tool like "git blame" [1] to generate the author list.

>
> Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
>> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
>> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
>> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
>> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
>> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
>>
>
> Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with
> another pseudonym? I know of no such case.

Is this even possible? I only have the rights to do this on ro.wp and
I see no option to replace the name with a pseudonym. I just select
"Delete the username or IP address" and add a reason and the history
shows the text "username deleted" crossed. And on the pdf export, I'm
positive there is no pseudonym used.

Strainu


[1] https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-blame.html

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
> to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
> the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
> deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the
> contributor list.
>
> While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
> is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
> version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
> C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it
> credit the full author list of version B?
>

No, the reverted text is derived from A, not from B. That there has been a
version in between at the same place does not matter. Same argument in
different wording: None of the creativity that goes into the vandalizing
from version A to version B is present in version C. Thus, version C does
not fall under the copyright of the vandal. Which means that there is also
no obligation to honor their licensing restrictions, only those of the
authors who are actually partly responsible for the final document.

Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
>

Is it usual to remove names from history without replacing them with
another pseudonym? I know of no such case.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Marco Chiesa]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Strainu  wrote:

>
> While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
> is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
> version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
> C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it
> credit the full author list of version B?
>

Actually, following the same philosophy, one should wonder whether the
person reverting from version B to version C should be kept in the
contributor's list. At the end of the day, version C is an exact copy of
version A (i.e. no creative input of editor C), and version B is a
derivative version of version A, but versions C+1 and following are not
derivative versions of B, only of A and previous.


>
> Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
>

I guess a pseudonym is the correct way to deal with this situation

Cruccone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Ilya Korniyko]

Answer to the first question is very simple - C is derived from A, not
vandalized B revision.


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
> to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
> the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
> deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the
> contributor list.
>
> While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
> is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
> version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
> C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it
> credit the full author list of version B?
>
> Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
> just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
> actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
> removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
> because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
> the user *at least* with a pseudonym?
>
> Thanks,
>Strainu
>
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Is the capability to delete usernames compatible with the CCBYSA license?

[Strainu]

Hi,

Someone brought up an interesting issue: is it moral for the vandals
to be credited as contributors to articles (especially when exporting
the article as pdf)? After experimenting a little, it turns out that
deleting the usernames from the history removes them from the
contributor list.

While morality is a subjective matter, a more interesting question is:
is this behavior compatible with the CCBYSA license? Say we have
version A of a text, vandalised in version B and reverted in revision
C. Then version C is a work derived from version B, shouldn't it
credit the full author list of version B?

Going further, say that someone with an offensive username (or even
just an username unaccepted on wikipedia, such as a company name)
actually makes a valid edit, which is not reverted, but the name is
removed from the history. Is it fine to ignore the license just
because we find some usernames offensive? Shouldn't we instead credit
the user *at least* with a pseudonym?

Thanks,
   Strainu

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Theo,


Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
> as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
> footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
> concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF board
> members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however, the
> WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few
> iterations and external scrutiny.
>

You seem to live a false assumption that the FDC does not have elected
members at all. It does, and their proportion is going to grow in the
incoming years. But I don't think it matters, anyway - what is more
important, is the role of the FDC. It is not a decisive body, but an
advisory one. In all major financial decisions it is good to have a chain
of decision process, just to avoid groupthink. Moreover, it is quite a lot
of work, the Board would unlikely be able to tackle on their own, with all
other responsibilities.



>   I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an
>> urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters).
>
>
> I quite believe the opposite might be true.
>

Basing on?... So far in two rounds we have made some recommendations, which
we had every right to assume that would not have been the most popular ones
under the sun.


> So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect
> the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and
> hilarity will ensue. '
>

If you're saying that the FDC may disagree with the Board and vice-versa,
that's 100% true. I'm not sure if I would call this a conflict. Drawing
different conclusions from the same data is not unprecedented in financial
evaluations. The only thing the FDC and the Board will definitely want to
avoid (each on their own shift) is to make mistakes. It is actually quite
good, in my opinion, that there are two stages in this process:
recommendation and an actual decision. If the Board disagrees with the FDC
and makes a better, different decision, I think it would be a success of
this model, rather than its failure.

All in all the Board is accountable to the movement and has actual,
fiduciary responsibility. Again, you perceive it as a flaw that an advisory
committee makes recommendations, although is not empowered to enforce them.
I respect this view, but such an organizational structure solution is quite
common and your critique applies to the whole concept of advisory
committees.

I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the
> other half to some participation from the larger community - be it through
> an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy
> of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board. so,
> another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to comment,
> just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their
> way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and
> consuming a lot of time and resources.
>

I'm assuming good faith, but your advice and the conclusion seem to be
contradictory (you say that we should resign, and as a result a new body
would be created, but it would be identical to the Board). The whole
purpose of the FDC is to have DIFFERENT people working as a committee and
advising to the Board. What I read from your comments is that you believe
that a two-stage decisionmaking process is dangerous, because it may bring
conflict. Perhaps we simply disagree here - in my view it is better to have
two different bodies look carefully at proposals worth millions of dollars,
rather than to rush them through the Board (which, as already noted, has
other duties, too and would not possibly be able to spend as much time on
this process, as we do).



> As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home
>> chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in
>> the boards.
>>
>
> Those are some high standards right there.
>

:) I'm assuming your comment was sarcastic. Any suggestions for systemic
improvement are welcome.



> I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of
> the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current
> members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within
> that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently
> being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like
> gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community
> of all.
>

well, as I am one of those, who never participated in any chapter actively
(full disclosure: I've been signed up as a member of a Polish chapter, but
I have never gone beyond that in terms of activity; I've never received a
grant from the chapter, etc.) it is fair for me to comment that indeed
there is quite many chapter activists in the