This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation
 certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing
list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in
decisions about what policy to make.

I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m afraid your comment here was regrettable.
  Nobody here was suggesting that the foundation make that policy based off
of the small group discussion, whether in a public mailing list or
otherwise. However, a long time valued member of the community was raising
a reasonable question. It deserves a better answer than that.

Respectfully, and with great fondness,

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Risker <> wrote:

> Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.  Fae
> is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of diverse
> ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to the
> point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation will
> make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be one
> of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of the
> mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
> Risker/Anne
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan <> wrote:
> > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> Additionally,
> > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> its
> > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> and
> > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as short-term
> > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to occupy
> a
> > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> needs
> > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > and
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

Philippe Beaudette
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to