Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Pine W]

I postponed responding to this thread partly because I was busy and partly
because I was mentally bracing myself for a rough ride.

I thank Risker, Nathan, Philippe, SJ, and James for their calm comments
here. I wish that I had been calmer myself.

I have not discussed this thread with Fae off list, and I'm not sure how
much (if any) credit I should get for improving WMF's governance, but I
hope that I have been a net positive influence.

Seddon, I would like to ask two questions and make one request. Unlike with
some other inquiries which are directed at WMF as an institution, and to
which I think WMF should feel an obligation to respond, for these inquires
I will fully accept if you choose not to reply. I make these inquiries more
to you personally than to you in your official job. The reason that I make
these inquiries is that I have the impression that you are frustrated, and
that frustration comes across to me as being fairly broad. My questions are
1. what gives you reasons for hope in the Wikiverse, and 2. why do you
choose to be in the Wikiverse? Perhaps, if you choose, you could respond to
these questions in a new thread or on your Meta talk page, because the
questions are tangential to the original subject of this thread.
Additionally, I request that you meet with me on Google Hangouts. I am one
of the more frequent contributors to this list, and I think that I should
take my own medicine by being willing to hear candid feedback if you have
any for me. I would be appreciative if you would contact me off list so
that we can schedule a time to meet. I am often willing to give feedback to
WMF whether positive or negative, but it is not my intention to make WMF as
an organization or you personally feel that WMF/you are in a no win
situation, and I worry that I might have done that. I think that a meeting
could be good for both of us. Again, I will accept if you choose not to
reply.

Regarding the topic of WMF's responsiveness, while I am wary of the WMF in
general and I am persistently frustrated with some elements of the
organization, I am also grateful to WMF for being willing to discuss
challenging questions during the strategy process, and for continuing to
accept participation from those of us who are sometimes highly independent
citizens of the Wikiverse. Also, I am grateful for staff who are
self-motivated to respond to complaints and difficult situations. I
apologize for my previous comments in this thread being more negative than
they should have been. I have my own faults too, and sometimes I need to be
reminded of my limitations and shortcomings so that I can try to mitigate
them and try to improve.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[James Heilman]

Agree that a further collaboration with internet archives on this could be
an excellent solution as I imagine they already do much of it.

On Tue, May 14, 2019, 21:13 Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dearests.
>
> The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
> archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight
> commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long
> term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps
> it should be.
>
> For instance sep11.wikipedia.org doesn't redirect where it should. We may
> not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their
> revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an
> oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.
>
> A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are
> full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working?
> & How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?
>
> IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia
> mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an
> internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is
> one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan,  wrote:
>
> > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> Additionally,
> > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> its
> > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> and
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Samuel Klein]

Dearests.

The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight
commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long
term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps
it should be.

For instance sep11.wikipedia.org doesn't redirect where it should. We may
not even still have an archival dump online. Deleted articles and their
revs are no longer targetable by links, not even with redaction (like an
oversighted rev in a rev list), making for ephemeralinks.

A better phrasing might be: how are archives made and maintained, where are
full copies of each project, is there any overview of how this is working?
& How can interested parties add to the mirror count of a project?

IA and IPFS each mirror some things. I don't know of any full-wikimedia
mirror that includes all projects and files, and while there may be an
internal mirror including all private userdata, I don't believe there is
one offsite -- a delicate kind of mirroring that calls for some thought.

SJ

On Tue., May 14, 2019, 6:03 p.m. Nathan,  wrote:

> The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
> the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
> projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
> media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
> different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
> to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> ___
> 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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

Lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to
self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth? Isn't that what every
maturing community with more than a handful of participants grows up to be?
:P

The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it
be? They are endemic across the movement throughout it's history and seen
at all levels today. But the strategy process is, like many other
processes, attempting to operate in a good faith manner and it is
definitely trying to take the movement in a better direction that it has
travelled so far (from an organisational standpoint). It consists of smart
people, working together in a good faith manner to effect positive change
within the movement.

For people like yourself who are dubious about the processes merits I think
you should still engage. Ensuring that it has the right focuses doesn't
necessitate prolonged engagement with the process. You don't need to go
through the slog of coming up with solutions necessarily, just make sure
someone will.

Regards
Seddon


On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:35 AM Nathan  wrote:

> I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is
> worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure
> if sniping on this list is as fruitful.
>
> I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an
> archive site" that seemed implicit, but the fundamental question of whether
> new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be
> preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the
> core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely
> preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.
>
> If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the
> strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the
> strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago
> acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the
> projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst
> attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an
> abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.
>
> All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors
> to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy -
> if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If
> that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in
> after all.
>
> PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier
> post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go
> wrong.
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.
> Fae
> > is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> > the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> > their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> > the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> > recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> > minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of
> diverse
> > ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> > improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> > strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> > to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to
> the
> > point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> > combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> > statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation
> will
> > make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> > internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be
> one
> > of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> > think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> > valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of
> the
> > mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it
> or
> > who pays for it.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> > Additionally,
> > > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> > its
> > > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> > and
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Nathan]

I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is
worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure
if sniping on this list is as fruitful.

I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an
archive site" that seemed implicit, but the fundamental question of whether
new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be
preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the
core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely
preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.

If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the
strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the
strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago
acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the
projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst
attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an
abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.

All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors
to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy -
if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If
that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in
after all.

PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier
post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go
wrong.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker  wrote:

> Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.  Fae
> is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
> ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
> point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
> make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
>
> I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
> of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
> mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> Additionally,
> > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> its
> > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> and
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

Philippe you are absolutely correct. Whilst I never commented on the
importance of any individual on this list nor the questioned the record of
anyone I admit that my tone was not what this list deserves. I also concur
there are merits to Fae's point.

However the intention behind my point is one I stand by. The switch from a
sound reasonable query into one laced with bad faith, poisoned the well. It
jumped immediately to an assumption that this was down to unwillingness of
senior staff to address the point. That's not healthy.

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet
it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because this
list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the
unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active
participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get
acknowledged or answered.

I have never shied from engaging here and I and others want to be able, in
good faith, be able to recommend and encourage fellow colleague and
volunteers to participate in this venue but I and many others can't do
that.

So I recognise that I should have approached my feedback on tone in a more
constructive manner and set a good example. It stemmed from a deep-rooted
frustration that I offer my apologies for allowing that to dictate the the
tone of my response. But if we want to see staff members more actively
participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do
so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to languish
and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
list faces.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation
>  certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing
> list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in
> decisions about what policy to make.
>
> I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m afraid your comment here was regrettable.
>   Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off
> of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or
> otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising
> a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.
>
> Respectfully, and with great fondness,
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.
> Fae
> > is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> > the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> > their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> > the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> > recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> > minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of
> diverse
> > ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> > improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> > strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> > to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to
> the
> > point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> > combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> > statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation
> will
> > make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> > internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be
> one
> > of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> > think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> > valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of
> the
> > mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it
> or
> > who pays for it.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Philippe Beaudette]

This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation
 certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing
list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in
decisions about what policy to make.

I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m afraid your comment here was regrettable.
  Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off
of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or
otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising
a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.

Respectfully, and with great fondness,
Philippe

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker  wrote:

> Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.  Fae
> is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
>
> The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
> ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
> point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
> make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
>
> I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
> of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
> mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> Additionally,
> > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> its
> > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> and
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 

-- 
Philippe Beaudette
phili...@beaudette.me
___
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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Risker]

Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.  Fae
is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.

The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
internet free of charge, in perpetuity."

I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
who pays for it.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan  wrote:

> The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
> the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
> projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
> media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
> different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
> to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> ___
> 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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Nathan]

The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy a
different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress needs
to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
___
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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Fæ]

Thanks for the reply! Especially from an official WMF Community and
Audience Engagement Associate.

Can we take it from your defensive email it is a fact that the WMF has
no known long term archive strategy?

By the way, in your apparent opinion we may be unimportant people on
an email list, but we have a long history of taking the initiative to
fundamentally shape the WMF, and not that long ago took action that
ensured a board member resigned and the WMF establish radically
different good governance practices. Not a bad record for loner unpaid
volunteers.

Thanks in advance,
Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions
> based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.
>
> I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
> > That's large but not astronomical.
> >
> > With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
> > Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
> > archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using
> > off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
> > might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
> > few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
> > and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
> > latest archive.
> >
> > It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
> > transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
> > an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
> > makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
> > government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
> > Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
> > the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
> > publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
> > appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
> > do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
> > organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
> > pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
> > plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
> > public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
> > have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.
> >
> > If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
> > and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
> > remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
> > suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
> > physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
> > idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
> > values and commitments.
> >
> > Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
> > if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
> > simple question publicly?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
> > > more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
> > > responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
> > >
> > > In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
> > > that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> > > board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while
> > other
> > > employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people
> > are
> > > in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> > > second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> > > previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> > > managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> > > improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> > > to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> > > capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> > > everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know
> > of
> > > no excuses for it.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Joseph Seddon]

Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions
based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.

I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.

Seddon

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ  wrote:

> I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
> That's large but not astronomical.
>
> With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
> Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
> archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using
> off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
> might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
> few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
> and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
> latest archive.
>
> It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
> transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
> an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
> makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
> government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
> Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
> the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
> publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
> appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
> do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
> organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
> pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
> plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
> public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
> have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.
>
> If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
> and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
> remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
> suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
> physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
> idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
> values and commitments.
>
> Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
> if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
> simple question publicly?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
> > more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
> > responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
> >
> > In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
> > that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> > board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while
> other
> > employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people
> are
> > in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> > second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> > previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> > managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> > improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> > to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> > capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> > everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know
> of
> > no excuses for it.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> > > verifiable
> > > > answer.
> > >
> > >
> > > I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> > > answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > ___
> > > 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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Fæ]

I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
That's large but not astronomical.

With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using
off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
latest archive.

It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.

If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
values and commitments.

Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
simple question publicly?

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

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
>
> I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
> more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
> responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
>
> In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
> that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while other
> employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people are
> in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know of
> no excuses for it.
>
> Pine
>
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:
>
> > 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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> > verifiable
> > > answer.
> >
> >
> > I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> > answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Pine W]

I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.

In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while other
employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people are
in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know of
no excuses for it.

Pine

( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )



On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> 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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> verifiable
> > answer.
>
>
> I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable
> answer.


I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!

Dan
___
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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Peter Southwood]

I too would like to know if there are any answers to this question, and while 
there may be more direct ways to get an answer, I agree that the answer should 
be shared here.
Cheers,
Peter Southwood

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Fæ
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:04 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable
answer.

Fae


On Tue, 7 May 2019, 10:44 Dan Garry (Deskana),  wrote:

> 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?
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good
> > to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects
> > sits within it.
> >
> > As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate
> > to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in
> > helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived
> > for 100 years.
> >
> > I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations
> > commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I
> > may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me
> > right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets
> > closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public
> > access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year
> > commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly
> > nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the
> > long term strategy.
> >
> > The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a
> > significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive
> > (not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find
> > publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.
> >
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Fæ]

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 a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable
answer.

Fae


On Tue, 7 May 2019, 10:44 Dan Garry (Deskana),  wrote:

> 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?
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good
> > to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects
> > sits within it.
> >
> > As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate
> > to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in
> > helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived
> > for 100 years.
> >
> > I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations
> > commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I
> > may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me
> > right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets
> > closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public
> > access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year
> > commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly
> > nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the
> > long term strategy.
> >
> > The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a
> > significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive
> > (not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find
> > publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.
> >
> > 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,
> 
___
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 commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

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?

Dan

On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ  wrote:

> With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good
> to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects
> sits within it.
>
> As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate
> to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in
> helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived
> for 100 years.
>
> I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations
> commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I
> may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me
> right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets
> closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public
> access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year
> commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly
> nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the
> long term strategy.
>
> The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a
> significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive
> (not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find
> publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.
>
> 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,