If anyone is opposed to any of these things, please say so: (1) adding database administration staff;
(2) not buying premium name-brand equipment or any equipment with e.g. BIOS-to-JTAG back doors; (3) opposing the TPP portions deleterious to movement interests; (4) opposing the recently omnibus-enacted CISA and its Chinese counterpart; (5) caching cited references at Foundation expense under volunteer review; (6) re-evaluating the FTE cost of supporting the different varieties of JavaScript on the different varieties of browsers on the different varieties of platforms including O(N^2) structures like cross-browser copy/paste. I think Visual Editor is sucking up the oxygen in Foundation engineering at the moment, leaving the lengthy community backlog mostly in the lurch; and (7) funding the Foundation Engineering Community backlog, and lengthening it from 10 items to 20. I am also fascinated by the discussion about whether a Florida law selection trumps an advertised election, but more interested in why Kevin wrote that I don't understand the Foundation mission. I proposed years ago that all Board meetings' open sessions should be live-streamed and recorded. The Foundation does that for monthly meetings, why not the Board too? Regards, Jim On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bawo...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space, you should take it >> up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it >> would be on-topic. >> > > The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important anti-spam > bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in recent years. > > I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and > recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of sufficient, > non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) equipment > to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and similar projects > such as Dispenser's reflinks cache. > > I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP provisions > deleterious to our interests, and that this position be endorsed on the > Public Policy list. > > >> Then by definition it wouldn't be a third-party spam framework if WMF >> was running it. > > > I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their > necessary service level requirements. > > Sincerely, > Jim > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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>
