On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:49, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I hope that some preliminary contingency plans exist or are being
> developed, and I'm sure that the movement-wide debate will widen if
> the US continues its downward slide into authoritarianism.
I agree with Erik. Even under the Obama
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 22:23, Michael Peel wrote:
> This seems to be a restriction against employers asking for someone’s
> salary history, not against including the expected salary range in a job
Yes. Apologies, the "undoubtedly not doing this" written in my earlier
email was a bit
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 12:39, Nathan wrote:
> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
I don't know. Maybe.
Within the US, there are markets where decent, experienced software
engineers earn half of what
Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
as of July 2018  which means that, as a San Francisco based
organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 12:16, Strainu wrote:
> Thanks for the response Dan!
> A rigorous study is IMHO impossible, since we're lacking a rigorous
> definition of the limits between WMF and community.
> OK, but how is this done precisely? Are there written docs? Mentors?
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 22:26, Strainu wrote:
> The pattern I'm seeing is: team gets a big project (in this case UCoC)
> -> team hires -> newbie makes good faith edits that are known to cause
> offense to some members of the community.
This is basically always going to happen when new people
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 15:29, Todd Allen wrote:
> That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't be a
> "drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
It's not clear to me what you're referring to here. What is the "that" that
was a "firm no"?
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 21:15, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> ECR and GKE.
Correction: I meant GCR, not GKE.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 18:20, Amir Sarabadani wrote:
> * I find it ethically wrong to use AWS, even if you can't host it in WMF
> for legal reasons, why not another cloud provider.
Which cloud provider would you recommend? Popular alternatives to AWS
include GCP (by Google, who unscrupulously
Does anyone know what the status of the APG process and the FDC is? The
documentation on-wiki seems to be out of date:
- The APG info page  says new applications are not being accepted,
and there's a bunch of errors in the table.
- The APG page  doesn't make reference to
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:49, Pine W wrote:
> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.
Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over
four years old. It was a
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 08:52, Henry Wood wrote:
> So the Ombudsman Commission is managed by a department that they are
> likely to want to report on?
No. The Ombudsman Commission oversees volunteer actions only. Complaints
about staff should be sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation.
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 05:50, Gerard Meijssen
> The disappointing you show and the grotesque conclusions are imho based
> in a sense of entitlement.
I don't think calling Yuri's conclusions grotesque or saying he is entitled
are particularly productive comments. Let's keep this list
On Wed 26 Jun 2019 at 00:58, Amir Sarabadani wrote:
> I have no comment on Wikimedia Space. IMHO it's too soon to criticize it
> but I want to point out to a pattern that I have been seeing in the past
> couple of months by several people in this very mailing list.
> You have been repeating
On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ wrote:
> I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place
> to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
> or not.
> Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
> are undoubtedly
I think the correct venue to ask for such a large, cross-cutting, strategic
commitment would be with the strategy process working groups, and not this
mailing list. Did you try engaging with them?
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ wrote:
> With all of the strategy discussions still on-going,
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> perhaps even
Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 21:09, James Salsman wrote:
> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen
> Thank you for your sense of superiority..
It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
this is not the correct way to address
As Srishti says, community wishlist items tend to be very under-defined,
with open-ended and ambiguous deliverables, and exist in complex spaces.
These things are okay because the people handling them are professionals
who are trained specifically to distill open-ended projects into specific
It may be helpful if you repeat the specific question you're asking. Right
now from your email I don't know what your question is other than asking
what the "strategy for conferences" is, which is so open and vague as to be
basically unanswerable. I think you have perhaps made your question
As is fairly typical with your proposals, most of the proposals in the
survey (free healthcare, universal basic income, etc.) have very little to
do with the Foundation's mission. If you're going to do a survey, I suggest
actually connecting it to the Foundation's mission, although sadly
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 03:39, Pine W wrote:
> I am wondering whether, for the purposes of (1) increasing the cost
> effectiveness of travel expenses, (2) reducing the negative environmental
> effects from travel, and (3) increasing the number of chairpersons who
> participate, if future meetings
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 11:44, vermont--- via Wikimedia-l <
> Entering Wikipedia while not logged in, from both a PC and mobile device,
> lead to an insane amount of large, bright red banners asking for donations.
> Statistics may show that this sort of
Mail list logo