Mailing List Archive

I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they
want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of
Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would
it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're
not asking for it already?

It's not that I think it's a definitively bad idea. I just don't think we
should create more organizational overheard unless we really need to. At the
moment, I don't see anyone asking for this kind of thing.

Steven

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <
anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> these cases..
>
> Anders Wennersten
> treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
> Member of ChapCom
>
>
>
> > Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
> > at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
> > (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
> > approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
> > decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
> > However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
> > case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
> > grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
> > the chapters framework?
> >
> > There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
> > that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
> > the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
> > organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
> > situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
> > sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
> > there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
> > continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
> > formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
> > have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
> > it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
> > as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
> >
> > Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
> > something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
> > How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
> > groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
> > compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-l mailing list
> > Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-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

Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting) seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let these groups name themselves.




________________________________
From: Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com>
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .

I would suggest we
1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
"Associates of ..." or something like that.
2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
these cases..

Anders Wennersten
treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
Member of ChapCom



> Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
> at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
> (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
> approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
> decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
> However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
> case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
> grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
> the chapters framework?
>
> There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
> that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
> the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
> organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
> situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
> sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
> there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
> continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
> formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
> have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
> it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
> as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
>
> Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
> something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
> How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
> groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
> compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-l mailing list
> Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-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

Hoi,
A typical scenario would be like this. An organisation does something that
is of interest to the WMF. The WMF and the organisation decide to cooperate
on this. Depending on what the project is, the WMF may decide to be actively
involve or sponsor the activity. The sponsorship is either monetary or in
lending the name, writing a letter of support.

When an organisation has a track record of positive cooperation with the WMF
or its chapters, it is considered a "partner organisation". When an
organisation is a partner, it gets certain privileges. This is laid down in
a "memorandum of understanding" and it has a termination clause for when
things go sour.

Now this is not a bureaucratic scenario and it is a scenario where the
relation is a relation of equals. When an organisation is not a chapter, it
can benefit from a recognised relation with the WMF. This is a reciprocal
benefit because it is good for the WMF to have strong relations with what I
would consider partners like the FSF and Creative Commons to name but two.
Thanks,
Gerard

2009/7/6 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>

> Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic
> charter for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular
> reporting) seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to
> control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let
> these groups name themselves.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com>
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
>
> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> these cases..
>
> Anders Wennersten
> treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
> Member of ChapCom
>
>
>
> > Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
> > at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
> > (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
> > approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
> > decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
> > However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
> > case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
> > grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
> > the chapters framework?
> >
> > There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
> > that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
> > the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
> > organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
> > situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
> > sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
> > there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
> > continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
> > formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
> > have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
> > it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
> > as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
> >
> > Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
> > something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
> > How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
> > groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
> > compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-l mailing list
> > Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-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

Anders Wennersten wrote:
> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> these cases..
>
>
>
One point in the model agreement that I find highly disagreeable is
having them governed exclusively by US law. Most chapters will operate
wholly outside the US as legally organized entities under the respective
country's laws, so it would make no sense to have those laws overridden
by the foreign laws of the United States. Waiving the application of
rights relating to the Conflict of Laws should not be done without
serious legal advice about the effects of this in one's own country.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The Foundation and Mike G, quite rightly I believe, are now working on
securing the value of the name, trademark and Logo use. According to
this focus they want to regulate all uses of the trademark and name
association in order it will not be misused. And to really secure it it
needs phrasings like below, in order for the Foundation to quickly be
bale to withdraw any recognition is any foul business occur.So while I
totally agree on the culture of WMF I also believe the name and
trademark is so important nowadays we can not put these in jeopardy by
too loosely regulated partners

MikeS already mention good examples, I can add some more we in ChapCom
are unsure of how to handle.
-A request from the Catalnn society wanting to promote an association
covering several national countries (Spain, France, Italy). They are now
in a lengthy process asking the approval of existing chapters, and the
question is if it not would eb easier for them to be recognized on
another base then geographic boundary/Chapter status
-A request from Macedonia. They are in general fulfilling the demands on
a chapter but some of us in ChapCom are concerned of their small
membercommunity (9-15) (and user community on mk:wp). It would be much
easier for all concerned if they could be given recognition and right to
use the trademark without being defined as a chapter (being more
controlled the first year or so, to see if they become a full viable
community)

Anders
Text from agreement which I find more or less appropriate (perhaps not,
though the US law controlling it)

**4.1.Conduct.* xxxx shall not engage in social or political activism
which might distract from the promotion of free content and knowledge,
any illegal activity, or any activity which might negatively affect the
work or image of Foundation. Chapter may promote free culture, free and
open-source software, and free knowledge at any time; such activity is
understood to be consistent with this clause and with the mission of the
Wikimedia Movement.

**4.2.No Authority to Act for Foundation.* xxxx shall not hold itself
out as an agent or representative or division of, permit its employees,
directors, officers, agents, and representatives to speak or act on
behalf of or purport to speak or act on behalf of Foundation, including
but not limited to making statements that purport to be official
positions of Foundation.

**4.3.Non-Profit Status.* xxxxr at all times shall remain in good
standing as a non-profit entity in the jurisdiction of its incorporation
and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the Region. xxxxr shall
advise Foundation within thirty (30) days if its status as a nonprofit
entity changes.

**4.4.Compliance with Law.* xxxxx shall comply with all applicable law
in its activities under this Agreement. xxxxx shall make all filings and
maintain, at its own expense, all permits, licenses, and other
governmental approvals that may be required in the Region in connection
with its performance of this Agreement





Geoffrey Plourde skrev:
> Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting) seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let these groups name themselves.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com>
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
>
> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> these cases..
>
> Anders Wennersten
> treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
> Member of ChapCom
>
>
>
>
>> Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
>> at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
>> (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
>> approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
>> decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
>> However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
>> case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
>> grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
>> the chapters framework?
>>
>> There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
>> that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
>> the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
>> organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
>> situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
>> sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
>> there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
>> continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
>> formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
>> have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
>> it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
>> wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
>> as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
>>
>> Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
>> something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
>> How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
>> groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
>> compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-l mailing list
>> Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-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

Hoi,
Your focus is too narrow and consequently many organisations that could be
and would be partners are excluded. Take for instance the Tropenmuseum, or
the Bundesarchiv, they provide us with essential material and it makes sense
to recognise this and allow them the use of our logo in the context of their
partnership. Such a partnership has implications for the WMF and its
projects; the minimial requirement for them is recognition of their
contribution.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/7/6 Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com>

> The Foundation and Mike G, quite rightly I believe, are now working on
> securing the value of the name, trademark and Logo use. According to
> this focus they want to regulate all uses of the trademark and name
> association in order it will not be misused. And to really secure it it
> needs phrasings like below, in order for the Foundation to quickly be
> bale to withdraw any recognition is any foul business occur.So while I
> totally agree on the culture of WMF I also believe the name and
> trademark is so important nowadays we can not put these in jeopardy by
> too loosely regulated partners
>
> MikeS already mention good examples, I can add some more we in ChapCom
> are unsure of how to handle.
> -A request from the Catalnn society wanting to promote an association
> covering several national countries (Spain, France, Italy). They are now
> in a lengthy process asking the approval of existing chapters, and the
> question is if it not would eb easier for them to be recognized on
> another base then geographic boundary/Chapter status
> -A request from Macedonia. They are in general fulfilling the demands on
> a chapter but some of us in ChapCom are concerned of their small
> membercommunity (9-15) (and user community on mk:wp). It would be much
> easier for all concerned if they could be given recognition and right to
> use the trademark without being defined as a chapter (being more
> controlled the first year or so, to see if they become a full viable
> community)
>
> Anders
> Text from agreement which I find more or less appropriate (perhaps not,
> though the US law controlling it)
>
> **4.1.Conduct.* xxxx shall not engage in social or political activism
> which might distract from the promotion of free content and knowledge,
> any illegal activity, or any activity which might negatively affect the
> work or image of Foundation. Chapter may promote free culture, free and
> open-source software, and free knowledge at any time; such activity is
> understood to be consistent with this clause and with the mission of the
> Wikimedia Movement.
>
> **4.2.No Authority to Act for Foundation.* xxxx shall not hold itself
> out as an agent or representative or division of, permit its employees,
> directors, officers, agents, and representatives to speak or act on
> behalf of or purport to speak or act on behalf of Foundation, including
> but not limited to making statements that purport to be official
> positions of Foundation.
>
> **4.3.Non-Profit Status.* xxxxr at all times shall remain in good
> standing as a non-profit entity in the jurisdiction of its incorporation
> and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the Region. xxxxr shall
> advise Foundation within thirty (30) days if its status as a nonprofit
> entity changes.
>
> **4.4.Compliance with Law.* xxxxx shall comply with all applicable law
> in its activities under this Agreement. xxxxx shall make all filings and
> maintain, at its own expense, all permits, licenses, and other
> governmental approvals that may be required in the Region in connection
> with its performance of this Agreement
>
>
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Plourde skrev:
> > Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic
> charter for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular
> reporting) seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to
> control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let
> these groups name themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com>
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
> >
> > I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> > definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> > recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
> >
> > I would suggest we
> > 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> > "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> > 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> > entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> > for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> > chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> > entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> > these cases..
> >
> > Anders Wennersten
> > treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
> > Member of ChapCom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
> >> at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
> >> (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
> >> approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
> >> decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
> >> However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
> >> case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
> >> grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
> >> the chapters framework?
> >>
> >> There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
> >> that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
> >> the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
> >> organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
> >> situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
> >> sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
> >> there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
> >> continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
> >> formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
> >> have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
> >> it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
> >> wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
> >> as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
> >>
> >> Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
> >> something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
> >> How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
> >> groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
> >> compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
> >>
> >> --Michael Snow
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-l mailing list
> >> Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-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