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


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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to