Philippe you are absolutely correct. Whilst I never commented on the
importance of any individual on this list nor the questioned the record of
anyone I admit that my tone was not what this list deserves. I also concur
there are merits to Fae's point.

However the intention behind my point is one I stand by. The switch from a
sound reasonable query into one laced with bad faith, poisoned the well. It
jumped immediately to an assumption that this was down to unwillingness of
senior staff to address the point. That's not healthy.

I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And yet
it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because this
list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
written with such overt passive aggression.

I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list, the
unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most active
participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not get
acknowledged or answered.

I have never shied from engaging here and I and others want to be able, in
good faith, be able to recommend and encourage fellow colleague and
volunteers to participate in this venue but I and many others can't do

So I recognise that I should have approached my feedback on tone in a more
constructive manner and set a good example. It stemmed from a deep-rooted
frustration that I offer my apologies for allowing that to dictate the the
tone of my response. But if we want to see staff members more actively
participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who do
so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to languish
and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
list faces.

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:57 AM Philippe Beaudette <>

> 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,
> Philippe
> 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:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>


*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to