Advanced
Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

  1. Home >
  2. Wikipedia>
  3. Foundation
Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 2:51 AM
Post #1 of 10 (906 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues
in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually.
Thanks,
GerardM

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: HÃ¥vard Hjulstad <HHj@standard.no>
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol

The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:



The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated

leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for
the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan
* in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the
ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)



The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and
recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.



Best regards,

HÃ¥vard Hjulstad



*--------------------*

*HÃ¥vard Hjulstad*

* Standard Norge / Standards Norway**
** Postboks 242, NO-1326 Lysaker**
** besøksadresse / visiting address: Strandveien 18*

* tel: (+47) 67838600 | faks / fax: (+47) 67838601*

* direkte tel / direct tel: (+47) 67838645*

*hhj@standard.no*

* **http://www.standard.no/*

*--------------------*

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
me at marcusbuck
Nov 3, 2008, 6:12 AM
Post #2 of 10 (878 views)
Permalink
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
> Hoi,
> Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues
> in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about
it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for
decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes
and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language
subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a
precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are
heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals
for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not
eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.

Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the
ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd
be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan
Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If
there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today
(after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?

Marcus Buck
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: HÃ¥vard Hjulstad <HHj@standard.no>
> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
> Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
>
> The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:
>
>
>
> The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
>
> leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for
> the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan
> * in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the
> ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
>
>
>
> The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and
> recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> HÃ¥vard Hjulstad
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
node.ue at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 6:27 AM
Post #3 of 10 (870 views)
Permalink
I think the reasonable thing to do would be to move it to a new
subdomain that indicates it is "rum" in Cyrillic, although I think
that particular written language, usually known as Moldovan or even
Cyrillic Moldovan, should have its own ISO code. Of course it is kind
of a moot point right now as there are no active contributors (as it
is locked) and no native speakers have requested an unlocking, but I
think at some point, the idea of the script converter should be
revived. It would not be too difficult, and although it might offend
some people's political sensitivities, I don't seewhy we should bend
over backwards for that instead of serving a particular population
adequately.

Mark

On 03/11/2008, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues
> > in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about
> it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for
> decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes
> and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language
> subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a
> precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are
> heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals
> for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not
> eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
>
> Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the
> ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd
> be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan
> Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If
> there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today
> (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
>
>
> Marcus Buck
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Håvard Hjulstad <HHj@standard.no>
> > Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
> > Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
> >
> > The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:
> >
> >
> >
> > The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
> >
> > leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for
> > the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan
> > * in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the
> > ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and
> > recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 7:10 AM
Post #4 of 10 (868 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available. It
is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the Internet.
When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would know
that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as a
consequence.

I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I
still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been
dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear
that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
Thanks,
Gerard

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
> > Hoi,
> > Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that
> issues
> > in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about
> it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for
> decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes
> and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language
> subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a
> precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are
> heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals
> for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not
> eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
>
> Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the
> ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd
> be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan
> Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If
> there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today
> (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
>
> Marcus Buck
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: HÃ¥vard Hjulstad <HHj@standard.no>
> > Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
> > Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
> >
> > The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has
> decided:
> >
> >
> >
> > The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
> >
> > leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used
> for
> > the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and
> *Moldovan
> > * in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in
> the
> > ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items,
> and
> > recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > HÃ¥vard Hjulstad
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
geniice at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 7:52 AM
Post #5 of 10 (873 views)
Permalink
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available. It
> is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the Internet.
> When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would know
> that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
> languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as a
> consequence.
>
> I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I
> still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been
> dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
> situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear
> that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
> Thanks,
> Gerard

So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
memebers agreed to this?


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 7:59 AM
Post #6 of 10 (862 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no
responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > Hoi,
> > With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available.
> It
> > is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
> Internet.
> > When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
> know
> > that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
> > languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as
> a
> > consequence.
> >
> > I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I
> > still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been
> > dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
> > situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear
> > that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
>
> So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
> memebers agreed to this?
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
innocentkiller at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 8:02 AM
Post #7 of 10 (868 views)
Permalink
I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with
all
projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related
issues are under LangCom :)

-Chad

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no
> responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > > Hoi,
> > > With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
> available.
> > It
> > > is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
> > Internet.
> > > When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
> > know
> > > that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
> > > languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant
> as
> > a
> > > consequence.
> > >
> > > I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I
> > > still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
> been
> > > dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
> > > situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
> clear
> > > that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerard
> >
> > So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
> > memebers agreed to this?
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
gerard.meijssen at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 11:03 AM
Post #8 of 10 (859 views)
Permalink
Hoi,
We explicitly are not involved in any issue that has not to do with the
process of starting new projects in new languages or existing languages.

There are several issues that are not dealt with as a result. However, these
issues are not within the remit of the language committee.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with
> all
> projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related
> issues are under LangCom :)
>
> -Chad
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no
> > responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
> > available.
> > > It
> > > > is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
> > > Internet.
> > > > When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
> > > know
> > > > that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
> > > > languages. The question of what I personally find is not that
> relevant
> > as
> > > a
> > > > consequence.
> > > >
> > > > I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and
> I
> > > > still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
> > been
> > > > dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
> > > > situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
> > clear
> > > > that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Gerard
> > >
> > > So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
> > > memebers agreed to this?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
node.ue at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 12:44 PM
Post #9 of 10 (870 views)
Permalink
This has been a problem in the past. Everybody with a complaint or
problem that is language-related wants to take it to LangCom for a
ruling. However, LangCom only has the power to make decisions about
new projects and new languages, as far as I know... so it is another
situation where people are looking in the wrong place.

Of course, it would be logical for a language committee to handle all
language-related affairs, but that is not the way it is. Although
members of the LangCom may have opinions about, say, Serbo-Croatian or
Moldovan or various other pre-LangCom linguistic debates, they don't
have a mandate to make any sort of binding ruling on those matters,
unfortunately.

Mark

On 03/11/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> We explicitly are not involved in any issue that has not to do with the
> process of starting new projects in new languages or existing languages.
>
> There are several issues that are not dealt with as a result. However, these
> issues are not within the remit of the language committee.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with
> > all
> > projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related
> > issues are under LangCom :)
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no
> > > responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
> > > available.
> > > > It
> > > > > is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
> > > > Internet.
> > > > > When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
> > > > know
> > > > > that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
> > > > > languages. The question of what I personally find is not that
> > relevant
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > consequence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and
> > I
> > > > > still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
> > > been
> > > > > dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
> > > > > situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
> > > clear
> > > > > that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Gerard
> > > >
> > > > So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
> > > > memebers agreed to this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > geni
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol [ In reply to ]
jhsoby at gmail
Nov 3, 2008, 12:49 PM
Post #10 of 10 (862 views)
Permalink
2008/11/3 Marcus Buck <me@marcusbuck.org>

> Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
> > Hoi,
> > Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that
> issues
> > in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about
> it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for
> decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes
> and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language
> subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a
> precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are
> heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals
> for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not
> eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
>
> Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the
> ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd
> be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan
> Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If
> there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today
> (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?


Actually, the ISO is ideal for us. It is an external organsation, not
related to us in any way, and tries to be as neutral as possible. What you
would like is some perfect measure as to what languages to approve or not,
but there is none; believe me, if there was something better than ISO 639,
we would switch right over, but there isn't.

What some people seem to want is for either us, langcom, or the community,
to decide our-/themselves what can be deemed as languages or not, but
believe me, that is not a path we would like to go down. No matter how hard
we try, we would never be able to be as neutral or professional as the ISO
team is, and the results would probably be arbitrary and inferior to what we
have now.

--
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

©2024 GT.net. A Gossamer Threads company.
5th Floor, 455 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6C 1T1, Canada | Legal