Yes, that's the one I'm about. It's good that all these things are documented at least somewhere but it would be good to have them in one place. I don't think it's a very nice thing when we have almost half a dozen of GLAM lists all documented in different places. It's not very important who actually hosts them.

I suggest that all GLAM lists are to be listed on with some details on them.

On 09.06.2015 13:40, Liam Wyatt wrote:
I'm guessing that he's referring to the attendees of a GLAM meeting that was held in Paris a few months ago and is comprehensively documented on Meta: Yesterday, I asked the ~15 attendees of that meeting a followup question about my own work, and called them the "paris group" in that email as a shorthand. As far as I know, that's the only time the phrase has been used in a GLAM-specific context.

-Liam <>
Peace, love & metadata

On 9 June 2015 at 12:15, Benoît Evellin (Trizek) < <>> wrote:

    Hello Base

    Guessing from your first email, the "Paris group" you mention may
    be this mailing list hosted by Wikimédia France
    <>, which allows people living
    in Paris discuss about their local IRL actions (like visiting

    This list is not a generic mailing-list, like lists hosted by WMF.


    On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk <
    <>> wrote:

        Your comment does not cover the fact that not all lists are
        hosted by <>.

        E.g. cultural partnership is here:

        Some other chapters also host lists and there're googlegroups
        to consider. That's a one thing why a mere server listing of
        lists does not suffice. Another is that an automatical list
        listing isn't where you can write rules, membership
        procedure/criteria and other stuff needed for transparency.
        Well not just transparency issue but also of need to
        concentrate data in one place is to be considered.

        On 09.06.2015 3:40, Philippe Beaudette wrote:

            The canonical home for the list of lists is
   While it is
            possible to have
            a list hidden from there, it would be pretty unusual for a
            GLAM list, I


            *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\
            Foundation, Inc.
            T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 <tel:1-415-839-6885%20x6643> | <> | : @Philippewiki

            On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk
            < <>> wrote:

                Hi guys.

                Just how many GLAM lists do we have?

                Not counting regional ones, I know of GLAM,
                Cultural-Partners, Libraries,
                got to know about existence of some the "paris group"
                (not sure if it's
                even a mailing list technically, but in case it's not
                then it's weird even
                more). Perhaps there are some (or is it many?) others.

                Should they not be all listed in one place, e.g. on
                with clear data
                about who manages them, what are their scope, rules
                and how you might joint

                Just having many is already confusing but when you
                can't even get a list
                of all of them it's confusing even more.

                I'm sorry if some of the lists I listed were intended
                as cabalish and not
                to be disclosed to others. I don't think cabalish
                lists are a good way to
                collaborate for wikimedians.

                Yours sincerely,

                Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

            Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

        GLAM mailing list <>

-- Benoît Evellin (Trizek)
    Community Liaison, Product
    Wikimedia Foundation

    GLAM mailing list <>

GLAM mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to