Hoi,
When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.

It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
What community?
Thanks,
        GerardM

Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com
>

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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