>I should also mention that while we try to be as transparent as possible in
>all our work (including holding community consultations around all major
>legal policies and providing frequent updates on our work), there are very
>limited situations where public discussions could actually hurt free access
>to Wikipedia. If you have thoughts about the evolving censorship landscape,
>feel free to email me directly, if possible via encrypted email.

I find the secrecy surrounding the HTTPS rollout to be odd (To put it mildly).

What are we worried about. A censor who follows wikimedia-l, but not
the press release the WMF issued?

All the technical details are public (The git repo is public. Not to
mention the whole fact we're using https is going to be painfully
obvious when you visit the site, and its in https). We aren't doing
anything surprising, we are in the process of simply following what
many people consider best practices. We've publicly stated our
intention to do this for years now. And its pretty obvious what the
next steps of the deployment are going to be. The only thing really
being kept secret is the timetable, and which specific projects are up


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to