Hi All,

One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally.  If there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera.  If
affiliates want a place to communicate with each other without the glare of
publicity, they will have one, and saying "No" to this request won't force
them into some form of radical transparency.

Cheers,
Craig

On 21 October 2015 at 08:00, Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ow yes, I remember a affiliate specific issue that was not handled
> appropriate by some users from outside any affiliate.
>
> And also this discussion here doesn't give a comfortable feeling (in my
> opinion) to affiliates to do (always) a public discussion. If I as
> affiliate member, want to have feedback from my colleagues, I am not
> waiting for a hostile environment.
>
> The problem here as well is that people with certain tasks, like running an
> affiliate, do have the need for communication with people with the same
> task. That is the basic reason for setting up a mailing list. If you can't
> imagine why people with the same task should communicate internally, it
> certainly should not up to you to decide due a lack of experience.
> Years ago I could not imagine why certain people with a certain task wanted
> to communicate with each other internally, until I came in that position
> myself. If I want feedback in how other affiliates do certain things, I am
> not waiting for other people to scare those affiliates away with their
> messages.
>
> And by the way, having a way to communicate internally (like a closed
> mailing list) does not create a walled garden away from the community.
> The thing that does create a walled garden away from the community is by
> saying that some people are separate because they have a certain task. The
> "we versus them" thoughts.
>
> And what is called a "community" is much much larger than the small amount
> of people on the mailing list, that is typically biased as result of hard
> discussions that occur from time to time.
>
> Romaine
>
>
> 2015-10-19 20:54 GMT+02:00 Ed Erhart <the.e...@gmail.com>:
>
> > You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
> > This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> > discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling
> the
> > list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
> > to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone
> there
> > is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> >
> > Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues"
> occurring
> > in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
> > private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
> > on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> >
> > If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the
> broader
> > community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
> > they're already in.
> >
> > --Ed
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this
> > issue
> > > (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
> > >
> > > I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on
> the
> > > list would like to do.
> > >
> > > I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require
> > privacy.
> > > One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might
> include
> > > financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with
> the
> > > WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> > > understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> > > discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
> > >
> > > If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> > > might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are
> several
> > > private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> > > requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> > > private, which seems reasonable.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> > > affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would
> > like
> > > to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
> > >
> > > I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> > > worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I
> > suppose)
> > > by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the
> target
> > > audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward.
> The
> > > end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as
> much,
> > or
> > > create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like
> to
> > > avoid that.
> > >
> > > -greg
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein <sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> > > > public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> > > >
> > > > A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> > > > (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to
> the
> > > > list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.
> > If
> > > > list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that
> > purpose
> > > > can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> > > > discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> > > >
> > > > The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> > > > decision to make a list public are generally those already on the
> list.
> > > > And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether
> > its
> > > > archives should be public.
> > > >
> > > > Gregory Varnum writes:
> > > >> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> > > >
> > > > Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need
> private
> > > > discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
> > > affiliates
> > > > who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so"
> > and
> > > > you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are
> > not
> > > > publicly visible or archived.
> > > >
> > > > The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also
> > encouraging
> > > > people who currently write about their work publicly to start using
> > this
> > > > new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> > > > forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers,
> > local
> > > > communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
> > > formal
> > > > recognition process) will be walled out.
> > > >
> > > > SJ
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> > > gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a
> > good
> > > >> number of people on it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is
> best
> > > for
> > > >> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure
> is
> > > >> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the
> > whole
> > > >> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests
> for
> > > the
> > > >> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and
> make
> > > >> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the
> list
> > > most.
> > > >>
> > > >> -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > >> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart <the.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should
> require
> > > >> more
> > > >>> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency
> and
> > > >> create
> > > >>> yet another walled garden away from the community.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --Ed
> > > >>> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we
> > really
> > > >> want
> > > >>>> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should
> > be
> > > >> run
> > > >>>> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other
> hand,
> > > if
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among
> affiliates
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >>>> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF
> > employees
> > > >> to a
> > > >>>> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense.
> > > Personally,
> > > >> I
> > > >>>> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have
> > generally
> > > >>>> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years
> as
> > > >>>> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's
> > > evaluation
> > > >>>> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
> > > >> working
> > > >>>> on this.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Pine
> > > >>>> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hey Pine,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
> > > >> discussions
> > > >>>>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you
> referred
> > > to.
> > > >>>> We
> > > >>>>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing
> that
> > > >> list
> > > >>>>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
> > > >> ultimately,
> > > >>>>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected
> to
> > > >>>>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> > > >>>>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a
> > majority
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
> > > >> personal
> > > >>>>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time,
> but
> > > >> that
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially
> > > help
> > > >>>>> manage.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > >>>>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Carlos,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters
> > > mailing
> > > >>>>>> list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> > > >>>>>> ).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Pine
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> > > >>>>> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Dear all,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to
> introduce
> > > the
> > > >>>>>>> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is
> > > basically a
> > > >>>>> place
> > > >>>>>>> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user
> > > >> groups)
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to
> other
> > > >>>>>>> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide
> > > events.
> > > >>>> The
> > > >>>>>>> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
> > > >>>> movement,
> > > >>>>>>> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities,
> > > joint
> > > >>>>>>> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> > > >>>>>>> communications from affiliates.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on
> the
> > > >>>>> mailing
> > > >>>>>>> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to
> > > >> request
> > > >>>>>>> additional spots if needed.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> > > >>>>>>> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further
> questions.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>> Carlos
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> > > >>>> wayuukanairua
> > > >>>>>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> > > >>>> junain."
> > > >>>>>>> Carlos M. Colina
> > > >>>>>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > > >>>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > > >>>>>>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> > > >>>>>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > > >>>>>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > > >>>>>>> Twitter: @maor_x
> > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >>>>>>> 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
> > > >>>>>> 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
> > > >>>>> 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
> > > >>>> 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
> > > >>> 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
> > > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Samuel Klein          @metasj          w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> > 4266
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to