the proliferation of lists is also an issue as someone who's been on a chapter committee for 2 years and going into my third finding the right lists to join is a problem.
When you rely solely on electronic means of contact you never get the knowledge of the where discussions are taking place and again the private lists ensure thats perpetuated. I understand the reasonings for private when groups are talking, that makes it critical in maintaining the currency of lists. The list should be without restriction to all members of a committee not limited to two or three as that tends to contribute to a rapid knowledge decay, missed opportunities and facilitation of power plays all of which ultimately make poor decisions easier to incur and harder to fix On 21 October 2015 at 11:13, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, we already have chapters-list (that did not had a have flux) that is > "private", and the knowledge there (I know, barely nothing) could be used > to the Aff, but it's private... The volume of discussions demanding an > opacity is... none! Documents will not be shared at mailing lists, and > problems must not be hidden from the "public". > > This privates clubs are not coherent to values of Wikimedia Movement. > > On 21 October 2015 at 00:27, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> > wrote: > > > 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> > > > > > > -- > Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton > rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com > +55 11 979 718 884 > _______________________________________________ > 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> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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>
