Anna

> To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
>

Got it, thanks for asking.


>
> > So for example, in the
> > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the
> > software roadmap would be effective.
>
>
> I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> upon
> they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
>

I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
require a Roadmap, see below.

The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.


> > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > some time.
>
>
> How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not
> like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved
> *the
> scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
>

Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.

>
> Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that
> we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought
> for it.
>
> To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
>

My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
this year?

>
>
> > In the middle ground, there is the
> > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan
> > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging
> > by these events.
> >
>
> I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so
> far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
>

Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and
it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused to
even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.


   1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
   lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
   2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too
   difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
   3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to
   admit that it has not yet got round to doing it
   4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows
   the Community would not like it
   5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the
   effort to publish it
   6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a wide
   range of subjects including this one

Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?



>
> I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone
> would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What
> would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent
> publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
>

It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with
the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to
identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to
better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to
plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new
technologies and systems.


> And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the
> ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important
> problems.
>

Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire to
expose its view of those problems.


> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
>
> and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your
> name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or
> even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.


To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my real
name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional
wizard from the far future.

"Rogol"

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol,
> >
> > Good to hear from you.
> >
> > "I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> > answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> > productive
> > form of engagement between the two sides."
> >
> > Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
> this
> > instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> > spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> > communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
> >
> > "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
> the
> > Community."
> >
> > Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always
be
> > learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> > statement.
> >
> > /a
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> > > answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the least
> > > productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is
> what,
> > if
> > > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need
> to
> > > carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be delivered
> on
> > > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> > >
> > > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by
> > > Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson for
> > > management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I have
> > > advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
> > at a
> > > higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the
> > > Foundation's reluctance to do that.
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> > > community
> > > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
> > Or
> > > > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
> and
> > > Z.
> > > > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
> > > second
> > > > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
> our
> > > > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> > > >
> > > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
> > expressing
> > > > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
> out.
> > 2)
> > > > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
> WM
> > > > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
> People
> > > who
> > > > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
> and
> > > far
> > > > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
> > continue
> > > > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
> food
> > on
> > > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
> > > > movement will pick him up.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> petefors...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anna,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm
I
> > did
> > > > > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
> was
> > > > > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
> > > interpreting
> > > > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
> > > their
> > > > > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
> message
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
> > > > > necessitates
> > > > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have
> a
> > > > > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
> > > > degree
> > > > > is
> > > > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
> > > Sad!).
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what
> to
> > > > make
> > > > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
> James,
> > > DJ,
> > > > or
> > > > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
> > standing
> > > to
> > > > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
> > > > worthwhile
> > > > > to
> > > > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
> > > scale
> > > > > that
> > > > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
> being
> > > > asked
> > > > > of
> > > > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
> them
> > > the
> > > > > time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a
> > > > discussion
> > > > > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
> > > seemed
> > > > > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
> > to
> > > > them
> > > > > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
> > > legally
> > > > > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think
> it
> > > is
> > > > > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
> not
> > > made
> > > > > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
> > > you'd
> > > > > > like.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Pete
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> > > petefors...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Anna,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Pete,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
> > > think
> > > > I
> > > > > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
> if
> > > full
> > > > > >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
> not
> > > be
> > > > > >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
> > right?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
> > Thanks.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“This
> > > > > >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are
> involved.
> > > > > >> Sometimes
> > > > > >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t
> know
> > > > > whether
> > > > > >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts.
> The
> > > > truth
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial
> > communication
> > > > that
> > > > > >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
> > > being
> > > > > >> made.
> > > > > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
> > > known
> > > > > once
> > > > > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
> > > explanations
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
> > employment
> > > > law
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to
> > me.
> > > I
> > > > > >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
> > choice.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
> > > reasonable
> > > > > >> request to grant them.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
> > is
> > > in
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> tension with
> > > > > >>> another one:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
> > > > > important
> > > > > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain
are
> > > > > complex,
> > > > > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list
> > > > > >>> participants.
> > > > > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
> > > enthusiasm
> > > > > in a
> > > > > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
> > staff)
> > > > > would
> > > > > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
> weight
> > > > > behind
> > > > > >>> an
> > > > > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
> > > > generate
> > > > > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
> > > > > >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
> > > > Evaluation_Service>
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
> > > > > Readers.
> > > > > >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the
> > > > > >> interactive
> > > > > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed
to
> > > > pause,
> > > > > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
> > > during
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
> evolved
> > or
> > > > > moved
> > > > > >>> on by then.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
> for
> > > > > >> software.
> > > > > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
> > week,
> > > > > >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
> > point
> > > > > still
> > > > > >> stands.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -Pete
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> /a
> > > > > >> [[User:Annaproject]]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > > > astillw...@wikimedia.org
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
> > > where
> > > > > his
> > > > > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
> > > > [her/they]
> > > > > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
> > > > business."
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
> > otherwise.
> > > > In
> > > > > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all
face
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> constraints.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
> and
> > > > then,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> there
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline
> > that
> > > > > meets
> > > > > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
> > work
> > > on
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
> nor
> > > did
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> anyone
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
> > > reiterating
> > > > in
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> this
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
> > time
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> allow
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> for one person to return to work?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Warmly,
> > > > > >>>> /a
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <
> > > > > >>>> t...@tim-landscheidt.de
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> […]
> > > > > >>>>>> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is
> > temporary.
> > > > > I’ve
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> heard
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request,
> but
> > > no
> > > > > one
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen
> employees
> > go
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> through
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive
> > team
> > > is
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> working
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> to establish some cultural standards around supporting
> > > vacations.
> > > > We
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> want
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and
> > > > sometimes
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan
their
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> vacations
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> well
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> in advance and may not know that something tricky will come
> > up.
> > > > Just
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> you
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
> > > > > >>>>>> […]
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> > > > > >>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> > > > > >>>>> ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
> > > > > >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
> > > > > >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work
> > > > > >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> > > > > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> > > > > >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> > > > > >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> > > > > >>>>> be backed and explainable by others.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Tim
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>> 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>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
> it." -
> > > > > >>>> Margaret
> > > > > >>>> Fuller
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Anna Stillwell
> > > > > >>>> Director of Culture
> > > > > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > >>>> 415.806.1536
> > > > > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
> > wikimediafoundation.org
> > > >*
> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>>> 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>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >>> 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>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > > > i/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>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
> > > Margaret
> > > > > Fuller
> > > > >
> > > > > Anna Stillwell
> > > > > Director of Culture
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > 415.806.1536
> > > > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --

> > > > > James Heilman
> > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > >
> > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
> Margaret
> > > Fuller
> > >
> > > Anna Stillwell
> > > Director of Culture
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 415.806.1536
> > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
> Fuller
>
> Anna Stillwell
> Director of Culture
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to