Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[James Salsman]

Michael Snow wrote:
>...
> 17 USC 203 ... provides ... that derivative works prepared before
> termination may continue to be utilized.

I'm not sure if subsequent edits which preserve verbatim text are
derivative works. It's certainly worth figuring out. Section 101 of
the Copyright Act defines "[a] 'derivative work' as a work based upon
one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any
other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
"The copyright in a derivative work is independent of, and does not
affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of,
any copyright protection in the preexisting material." 17 U.S.C.
§103(2).

The preexisting material in the original work is part of the
derivative work, but the copyright in the derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of the derivative work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work. 17
U.S.C. §103(2). The copyright owner of the derivative-work copyright
does not obtain exclusive copyright rights in the preexisting
material.

> There goes my hopes of my pension.

If the year-over-year increase rate at which the Foundation is able to
raise funds stays constant, payment of full "willfully infringing"
damages plus a generous pension for all employees and active editors
would be easily within reach.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[Joseph Seddon]

There goes my hopes of my pension.

Seddon

On 28 Feb 2017 05:57, "Michael Snow"  wrote:

> On 2/27/2017 9:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
>
>> ... provide a little more context for this thread
>>>
>> Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
>> either payment for their contributions, or in the alternative if the
>> Foundation can't replace their edits with non-infringing
>> substitutions, between $750 and $150,000 per edit.
>>
> I suppose editors always have the right to demand payment for their
> contributions if that's what they really want. But as to the idea that they
> could further threaten to get statutory damages imposed, I'd advise that
> rather than relying on selective quotations from 17 USC 203, they at least
> review the entire section. I note that it also provides a limitation on the
> effect of termination, specifically that derivative works prepared before
> termination may continue to be utilized.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[Michael Snow]

On 2/27/2017 9:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:

... provide a little more context for this thread

Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
either payment for their contributions, or in the alternative if the
Foundation can't replace their edits with non-infringing
substitutions, between $750 and $150,000 per edit.
I suppose editors always have the right to demand payment for their 
contributions if that's what they really want. But as to the idea that 
they could further threaten to get statutory damages imposed, I'd advise 
that rather than relying on selective quotations from 17 USC 203, they 
at least review the entire section. I note that it also provides a 
limitation on the effect of termination, specifically that derivative 
works prepared before termination may continue to be utilized.


--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[James Salsman]

>... provide a little more context for this thread

Beginning in 2036, Wikipedia editors will obtain the right to demand
either payment for their contributions, or in the alternative if the
Foundation can't replace their edits with non-infringing
substitutions, between $750 and $150,000 per edit.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[Joseph Seddon]

I'm really sorry James... I suspect it may be the fog of my mind brought on
by nighttime, but would it at all be possible for you to provide a little
more context for this thread. :)

Seddon

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:11 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> This came up the other day and someone emailed me off-list suggesting
> it wasn't true. Since we've never had a real discussion about it, I
> should explain:
>
> > 17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses
> > granted by the author
> >
> > (a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work
> > other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive
> > grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under
> > a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978,
> > otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the
> > following conditions:
> >...
> > (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during
> > a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years
> > from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the
> > right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of
> > thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under
> > the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution
> > of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
>
> So, we still have 19 years, but, we're almost halfway there.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] 35 year copyright termination

[James Salsman]

This came up the other day and someone emailed me off-list suggesting
it wasn't true. Since we've never had a real discussion about it, I
should explain:

> 17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses
> granted by the author
>
> (a) Conditions for Termination.—In the case of any work
> other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive
> grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under
> a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978,
> otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the
> following conditions:
>...
> (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during
> a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years
> from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the
> right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of
> thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under
> the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution
> of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

So, we still have 19 years, but, we're almost halfway there.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Opening the 2016 Values discussion

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hello,

The discussion is now wrapping up. The process and its outcome were
presented last week at the Metrics and activities meeting; you're
encouraged to watch the segment in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blWUhkm8g4&t=17m18s

You can read the full transcripts of the discussions on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Transcripts

as well as browse through the main themes that emerged:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Themes

and their synthesis:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Synthesis

The discussion on the talk page of the synthesis is open until March 4
to finalize the language of the descriptions.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the discussions, and
everyone who helped with the organization. It was truly a joy to see
the interest of the participants and the deep, thoughtful discussions
that resulted from it.

I believe the values that have emerged as part of this process
constitute a part of our organizational identity that we had not
entirely codified, or even been conscious of, before. As our friend
Ray aptly put it in 2007, "The values were already there. Perhaps they
might have been poorly codified. Had they not been there, neither you
nor I would have stuck around for over five years."
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2007-September/079180.html

I hope that this exercise has helped us realize why we're here, and
that its outcome resonates with many members of our communities, both
present and future.


2016-10-18 11:27 GMT-07:00 Guillaume Paumier :
> Greetings,
>
> As a community, we've talked a lot about values in the past year. The
> core values of the Wikimedia Foundation were first formulated in
> 2007−2008 and have not really been discussed in depth since then. In
> 2013, we also developed Guiding principles, a list of more practical
> norms and expected behaviors that guide our day-to-day work at the
> Foundation. Combined with our vision and mission statements, those
> documents represent the core facets of our organizational identity.
>
> Both staff and volunteers have expressed concerns that there isn't
> currently a shared understanding (among the staff and other
> constituents) of what our core values are, and how we express them in
> our work. We've also talked about a need to revisit or reinforce them.
>
> A few months ago, a working group formed to organize a series of new
> discussions about the WMF's values. The goal is to reflect on what is
> bringing us together, identify the core beliefs that motivate our
> vision, refine our list of values, and clarify our organizational
> identity.
>
> Discussions about values in nonprofit organizations are usually done
> internally. Given the open and collaborative nature of the Wikimedia
> movement, such a closed, internal process wouldn't make sense for the
> WMF. The Foundation is part of an integrated ecosystem of individuals
> and organizations that contribute to defining its identity. Input
> should be collected not just from staff and Board members, but also
> from volunteers, affiliates, and partners who wish to participate in
> this process.
>
> On behalf of the Values working group, I would therefore like to
> invite you to this discussion on Meta. There, you will find more
> information about the process, as well as a page to share your
> perspective on the Wikimedia Foundation's values. The framing that
> we're using for this discussion is one that considers values as the
> core intrinsic beliefs that drive our participation in the movement.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion
>
> The discussion will be open for a month, i.e. until November 20.
> Comments added after that date will still be welcome, but may not be
> included in the summary process.
>
> I hope many of you take this opportunity to help define (or refine)
> the Foundation's organizational identity.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> Wikimedia Foundation



-- 
Guillaume Paumier

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

[Wikimedia-l] The Signpost – Volume 13, Issue 3 – 27 February 2017

[Wikipedia Signpost]

From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a
new RSS feed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/From_the_editors

Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Recent_research

Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in
Android app
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Technology_report

In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/In_the_media

Gallery: A Met montage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Gallery

Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Special_report

Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed

Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Featured_content

Traffic report: Love, football, and politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Traffic_report

Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Blog


Single-page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost


--
Signpost team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Lodewijk]

I don't see that reasoning at all, actually. If roles are clearly separate,
having separate accounts is justifiable in my opinion.

When doing so in a way that could suggest larger support for a proposal
than is actually the case, it could make sense to make the connection
explicit in a disclosure (unless the connection is obvious). After all,
that is the main reason why communities have a problem with sockpuppetry.
In general it would be good to stay away with your personal account from
staff discussions and vice versa - although roles can change, and the
interest in a topic can remain after a job is finished. Buut in such cases,
disclosure may be needed.

I'm not sure why Fae is asking this question through this venue though -
but that is a discussion I recall from a week or so ago, so he's probably
aware of that.

Lodewijk



2017-02-27 19:30 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac :

> Well, I don't think the WMF staffer is acting in bad faith but I do think
> they need to stick to a single account to avoid confusion. That being said,
> I don't think a discussion like this is necessary here.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Raddatz 
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Mon,
> 27 Feb 2017 10:22:54
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee
> personal
>  accounts in the same community discussions
>
> A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
> at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
> the discussion.
>
> Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
> constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
> hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
> > They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> > do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> > on the same page.
> >
> > Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> > confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> > multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> > made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> > of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> > employee in the same discussion.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz 
> wrote:
> > > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> > You
> > > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it
> continues.
> > > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > > curtious.
> > >
> > > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> > >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> > >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> > >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> > >> publishing personal views?
> > >>
> > >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> > >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> > >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> > >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> > >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> > >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> > >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> > >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> > >>
> > >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> > >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> > >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> > >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> > >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> > >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
> > >>
> > >> Links
> > >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> > >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
> > and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> > >> same_consensus_building_discussion
> > >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> > >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
> > Legitimate_uses
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Fae
> > >> --
> > >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Olatunde Isaac]

Well, I don't think the WMF staffer is acting in bad faith but I do think they 
need to stick to a single account to avoid confusion. That being said, I don't 
think a discussion like this is necessary here. 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Raddatz 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Mon, 27 
Feb 2017 10:22:54 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal
 accounts in the same community discussions

A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
the discussion.

Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.

On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> on the same page.
>
> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> employee in the same discussion.
>
> Fae
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> You
> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > curtious.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> >> publishing personal views?
> >>
> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> >>
> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
> >>
> >> Links
> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
> Legitimate_uses
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Pine W]

As with most things around here, this is more complicated than it may
appear on the surface.

I increasingly think that there are cultural differences between WMF and
some parts of the community that are difficult to bridge, that influence a
variety of the decisions that get made in WMF (such as global ban
practices, and which emails get responses and which don't), and which may
seem obvious from certain perspectives but are more subtle when looking at
them from other angles.

Previous attempts from me and others to align WMF more with the community
have had limited success. I'm more sad than frustrated; there have been
some successes, but fewer than I hoped.

I can't realistically push on every issue that I would like WMF to address,
so I'm not going to push this issue further in the foreseeable future,
though I'm likely to mention it periodically. Hopefully, at some point, WMF
will agree to support community design of a global ban system.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Pine W]

As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one
will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about
policy to go in the ideal world.

Trying to salvage that situation is more than I can take on at this time.
My hunch is that if the RfC is approved, even if I would change parts of
it, it'll be something that I can mostly accept and to which I may propose
amendments to the future. A more difficult web of problems will be the
relationships that are fraying and the accusations that have been going
back and forth. I don't have time to investigate all that now, and even if
I did, I'm not sure that it would do much good.

I think it would be helpful, and would be appropriate, for WMF employees to
*support* conversations like the development of CoCs in places like
Phabricator. But trying to *lead* those conversations is different matter.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Gergő Tisza]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki <
steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote:

> Apart from that, i see a big COI - the staffer in question is voting at
> the voting sections, striking out votes, defending the code of conduct and
> the he is marking a section as "consensus". Imho the COI is obvious, such a
> behavior wouldn't be possible at dewp or commons.
>

Commons has 30 thousand active editors; dewp has 20 thousand; mediawiki.org
has one thousand. Many smaller wikis don't have the kind of COI rules
around voting that the big ones have, because it's harder to find
uninvolved bystanders who care enough to do the administration. (On huwiki
for example it's customary for the person who proposed the vote to be the
closer.)

In this case every section closed as consensus had clear majority (60%+ by
my count) and all struck votes were made weeks after the given section was
closed, so I don't see anything problematic about that.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

Please try to avoid turning legitimate questions for the WMF into
parodies. The WMF is not evil, nor have emails in this thread made
anything like that type of ridiculous allegation.

This topic is in-scope for Wikimedia-l as defined by "Organizational
issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations, others" and
is not an issue that is easily resolved on a local on-wiki
noticeboard, but an issue of WMF account usage which potentially
affects all Wikimedia projects.

Thanks,
Fae

On 27 February 2017 at 18:22, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
> at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
> the discussion.
>
> Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
> constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
> hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
>> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
>> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
>> on the same page.
>>
>> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
>> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
>> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
>> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
>> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
>> employee in the same discussion.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
>> You
>> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
>> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
>> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
>> > curtious.
>> >
>> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
>> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
>> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
>> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
>> >> publishing personal views?
>> >>
>> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
>> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
>> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
>> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
>> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
>> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
>> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
>> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>> >>
>> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
>> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
>> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
>> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
>> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
>> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>> >>
>> >> Links
>> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
>> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
>> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
>> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
>> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
>> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
>> Legitimate_uses
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Fae
>> >> --
>> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubsc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
the discussion.

Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.

On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> on the same page.
>
> Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> employee in the same discussion.
>
> Fae
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> You
> > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > curtious.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
> >
> >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> >> publishing personal views?
> >>
> >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> >>
> >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> >> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> >> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
> >>
> >> Links
> >> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> >> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_
> and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> >> same_consensus_building_discussion
> >> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> >> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#
> Legitimate_uses
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
on the same page.

Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
employee in the same discussion.

Fae

On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
> Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
> could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
> I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> curtious.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:
>
>> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
>> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
>> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
>> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
>> publishing personal views?
>>
>> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
>> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
>> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
>> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
>> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
>> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
>> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
>> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>>
>> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
>> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
>> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
>> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
>> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
>> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>>
>> Links
>> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
>> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_
>> same_consensus_building_discussion
>> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
>> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Adrian Raddatz]

Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
curtious.

On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> publishing personal views?
>
> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
>
> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
> project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
> same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/
> Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_
> same_consensus_building_discussion
> 2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
> 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Fæ]

* Crickets *

If you were expecting a reply to the suggested "Agreement from the WMF
to reform the system", perhaps it needs to be raised in a more formal
fashion somewhere where WMF Legal or the CEO might feel they need to
answer?

Fae

On 20 February 2017 at 08:55, Pine W  wrote:
> I'm glad that we're having this discussion, as there are several points
> being made that should be considered in the documentation and design of the
> global bans system.
>
> I'm trying to think of what next steps would look like for reforming this
> system. I'd suggest something like the following:
>
> 0. Agreement from WMF to reform the system, and a timeline for doing so.
> For example, perhaps there would be agreement to start a "consultation" on
> this matter in Q4. The consultation could be designed jointly by
> representatives from WMF Legal, WMF SuSa, and community volunteers
> (preferably representing a variety of roles and content projects). Note
> that for this to work, the designers will need to cooperate with each
> other, or the process could descend into protracted disagreements that
> would make further progress be very difficult.
>
> 1. After the consultation is designed, it can be published for public
> input. (That includes input from WMF employees and contractors, individuals
> who are associated with Wikimedia affiliate organizations, and individual
> community members.)
>
> 2. Based on that consultation, the group that was assembled for part 1 can
> work together to design a new system. While unanimity is unlikely,
> consensus would be preferable. Where the group is uncertain or has internal
> disagreements, multiple options can be drafted for the community to
> consider in the following phase.
>
> 3. Based on the results from phase 2, a community RFC can be conducted. The
> RFC should be closed by one or more community stewards.
>
> The biggest downside that I see to this process is that the community
> members who volunteer to participate in the consultation design and system
> design phases will need to commit dozens of hours of their time, and many
> community members who are highly qualified for this kind of work are
> already busy with countless other tasks, problems, and projects. So there
> will need to be some consideration of how to provide volunteers some relief
> from their other responsibilities while they participate in the design
> process.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

[Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

[Fæ]

Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
publishing personal views?

I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.

I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on the Mediawiki
project, and help decide whether it can apply to WMF employees in the
same way it already applies to unpaid volunteer contributors.

Links
1. 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft#WMF_employees_confusingly_using_personal_and_staff_accounts_in_the_same_consensus_building_discussion
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sock_puppetry
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

To be honest, i am a bit concerned about Matt Flaschen's conduct here: 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft#Summary_of_criticisms 
This is not the behavior which i expect from a payed staffer.


Apart from that, i see a big COI - the staffer in question is voting at the 
voting sections, striking out votes, defending the code of conduct and the he 
is marking a section as "consensus". Imho the COI is obvious, such a behavior 
wouldn't be possible at dewp or commons.


Best,


--Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag von Rogol 
Domedonfors 
Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 08:32
An: Wikimedia Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

Yes.  See
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&oldid=2409367
at section "Final approval of CoC", where Matt's statement at
https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&oldid=784
is discussed.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> >now reneged on previous agreements to hold a final vote
>
> Has that actually happened? I'm hoping that no statement like "the total
> document isn't subject to an RfC" was actually made. That would add
> needless disagreement to a process that is challenging enough even in the
> best of circumstances, and in any case would likely be overridden by the
> community.
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,