[Wikimedia-l] community broadband

2014-04-21 Thread James Salsman
http://stopthecap.com/2014/01/30/anti-community-broadband-bill-introduced-in-kansas-legislating-incumbent-protection/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/alec-tech-and-the-telecom_b_1696830.html

Is the Foundation active on this issue? My question to the
advocacy_advisors mailing list was not approved by the moderator, but
after a few days now I don't have any reason that it's not a
legitimate question. Was there any discussion about whether that list
should be moderated?

Does the Foundation want to base advocacy efforts on issues that can
help a declining number of volunteers instead of the no longer extant
exponentially growing number of volunteers?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community broadband

2014-04-21 Thread Kevin Gorman
I couldn't think of an appropriate response, so here's some pandas doing
stuff:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/04/20/304915015/google-frecking-the-week-in-pandas

But, in seriousness, James: the Foundation is not going to be active on
stuff like pushing for community broadband.  It's not within even the broad
remit of the Foundation.  With this particular one, I'm guessing we'd gain
approximately half an editor per million dollars WMF invested in advocacy
efforts.  Community broadband is a noble cause, and there are many
organizations fighting for it.  We aren't one of them.  We shouldn't be one
of them.  The more you push for the WMF to become a broad-based advocacy
group targeting issues you care about (many of which I also care about,)
and the more often you are told by more people 'this isn't within our
remit,' the less likely future posts of yours that may have really solid
points in them are to be taken seriously.


Kevin Gorman


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://stopthecap.com/2014/01/30/anti-community-broadband-bill-introduced-in-kansas-legislating-incumbent-protection/


 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/alec-tech-and-the-telecom_b_1696830.html

 Is the Foundation active on this issue? My question to the
 advocacy_advisors mailing list was not approved by the moderator, but
 after a few days now I don't have any reason that it's not a
 legitimate question. Was there any discussion about whether that list
 should be moderated?

 Does the Foundation want to base advocacy efforts on issues that can
 help a declining number of volunteers instead of the no longer extant
 exponentially growing number of volunteers?

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community broadband

2014-04-21 Thread James Salsman
... the Foundation is not going to be active on stuff like
 pushing for community broadband.

Who is going to stop monoculture ISPs from interposing ads on top of
Foundation content HTTP streams?

... It's not within even the broad remit of the Foundation.

That's entirely debatable. It's far more empowering to give someone
10x faster internet at cost plus than keep them on a slow line paying
three times as much to make sure CEOs get more villas in France than
it is to be one of 8,000 voices in the copyright policy cacophony.

I welcome a cost-benefit-risk-resource analysis of all strategic
options, based on facts instead of mere assertions.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe