Mailing List Archive

2009/7/23 stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com>:
> I started a thread on Wikien-l last month suggesting we start a
> dispute resolution mailing list:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101428.html
>
> Responses were largely positive, and what little criticism the idea
> got (much of it from Thomas Dalton) was fairly easy to deal with.
> I filed bug report requesting the list's creation on June 27, which
> was assigned to C.Bass
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I also emailed
> C.Bass directly.

Responses were rather mixed - there were different proposals being
bounced around. As I recall, a list to discuss general dispute
resolution matters and perhaps to draw attention to specific disputes
has some support, but I don't recall much support for a list where
disputes would actually be resolved (which I think was your original
proposal). I don't think the list can be created until it is agreed
what it will actually be for.

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

Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of stevertigo
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
>
> I started a thread on Wikien-l last month suggesting we start a
> dispute resolution mailing list:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-June/101428.html
>
> Responses were largely positive, and what little criticism the idea
> got (much of it from Thomas Dalton) was fairly easy to deal with.
> I filed bug report requesting the list's creation on June 27, which
> was assigned to C.Bass
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I also emailed
> C.Bass directly.
>
> I'm curious as to the status of this. Its been a month. I've gotten no
> response from C.Bass, and the bug report has been thus far untouched
> or ignored. I realize of course that people are very very busy, and
> that private emails, bug reports, and wikien-l discussions are not the
> appropriate avenues for discussing a new open email list. That's why
> I'm mentioning it here.
>
> -Steven
>

Mailing lists don't get opened by mailing list discussions, and the "largely
positive" responses you received were neither numerous nor meritorious of
creating yet another list whose function has been duplicated in other
locations.

I could determine neither consensus based on your email nor a pressing need
for this list. I also emailed the English functionaries-l list to see if
someone would provide corroboration that the project merited such an email
list. The only responses I have received were private ones suggesting it
would result in another layer of bureaucracy, and nobody on list.

I have rather left the bugzilla open to determine whether or not it would
find additional support from any location. Since that point, you have not
gained any additional support. If I see nothing more than this by July 27,
I will close the bug as WONTDO for the very reasons I've outlined on this
email.

The appropriate thing for you to have done is to put a note on the bugzilla
or advertised it on the wiki and asked people to make comments on the bug
before you sent an email such as this to foundation-l. Since you did not,
you've certainly placed me in a defensive position; and having to explain to
you why your rather request has a lower priority than other things.

C.Bass


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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:

> Responses were rather mixed - there were different proposals
> being bounced around.

There weren't any "different proposals." Aside from suggestions taht
dealt with the scope such a list would take, there was a brief
suggestion for a separate announce list - one which simply posted what
issues were present.

> As I recall, a list to discuss general dispute resolution matters
> and perhaps to draw attention to specific disputes has some support,

That is correct. That is essentially the entire concept.

But note also that the core of our dispute resolution is best codified
with something like DBAD. So to make a habit of chastizing people
simply for getting into specific issues on a list itself violates
DBAD, and that is why Im reluctant to put hard boundaries on what can
or cannot be discussed. If its dispute resolution related, we can
discuss it. Obviously much will deal with simply pointing people to
the right places on the wiki, helping filing WP:DRR (requests), and
keeping things high-level, as you have suggested.

> but I don't recall much support for a list where disputes would
> actually be resolved (which I think was your original proposal).

That actually wasn't my proposal to "resolve" disputes there. On the
other hand, if a report to ANI or RFC receives attention that solves
certain problems, then does that mean you would object to the usage of
ANI or RFC to "resolve disputes?"

I guess the point is that the distinctions you illustrate and
so-called ambiguity issues you raise are unnecessary and
argumentative.

> I don't think the list can be created until it is agreed what it will
> actually be for.

Sure. That's why I proposed it in the first place. And as far as
agreement, goes, I gauge our degree of disagreement at only about five
percent.

-Steven

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

2009/7/23 stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com>:
> That actually wasn't my proposal to "resolve" disputes there. On the
> other hand, if a report to ANI or RFC receives attention that solves
> certain problems, then does that mean you would object to the usage of
> ANI or RFC to "resolve disputes?"

ANI and RFC *are* part of our dispute resolution processes...

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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/23 stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com>:
>> That actually wasn't my proposal to "resolve" disputes there. On the
>> other hand, if a report to ANI or RFC receives attention that solves
>> certain problems, then does that mean you would object to the usage of
>> ANI or RFC to "resolve disputes?"
>
> ANI and RFC *are* part of our dispute resolution processes...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Not sure what this has to do with foundation-l, can this go back to wikien-l?

-Chad

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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Chad<innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure what this has to do with foundation-l, can this go back to wikien-l?

Thomas' comment was a bit off-topic, but that does not mean this
entire thread belongs elsewhere. There are at least four reasons why
this discussion belongs here. If you do not understand the issues,
please do not make editorial suggestions.

-Steven

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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Cary Bass<cary@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Mailing lists don't get opened by mailing list discussions

Hm. I also filed a request on mediazilla, which was automatically
assigned to you.

> and the "largely positive" responses you received were neither > numerous nor meritorious of creating yet another list whose
> function has been duplicated in other locations.
> I could determine neither consensus based on your email nor a > pressing need for this list.

This could have been expressed by you earlier on the wikien-l list,
where you do occasionally participate. I disagree with all of it, but
I could not say anything about it, because you did not express it in
any way.

>  I also emailed the English functionaries-l list to see if someone > would provide corroboration that the project merited such an
> email list.

I cannot access functionaries-l. That means that your communications
there, in addition to being "private," were also "unwiki" -
considering we were discussing it openly on wikien-l and mediazilla.

> The only responses I have received were private ones
> suggesting it would result in another layer of bureaucracy, and > nobody on list.

If you could either forward these emails to me, or else summarize
their criticisms here, that would be wonderful.

(continued..)

-Steven

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

Cary Bass wrote:

> You have not gained any additional support.

Open discussion is of course the first step in gaining support.

We've been waiting for your participation, as you seem to be the
functionary in charge of starting new lists. Now that you are
participating in an open discussion, we can sort of resolve any issues
people might have with it.

> If I see nothing more than this by July 27, I will close the bug as >WONTDO

Well, that gives us three full days. This after you had been
non-responsive for almost a month. I understand that you are a
functionary, and do things in a functionary way, but I would
respectfully ask for more time. A whole week even.

> The appropriate thing for you to have done is to put a note on
> the bugzilla

I filed the report on mediazilla. No response. What then would I have
"put a note on the bugzilla" about, apart from my filing the
request/bug?

> or advertised it on the wiki and asked people to make comments > on the bug before you sent an email such as this to
> foundation-l.

Hm. All I did was start a 100 message thread on wikien-l, and a
request on mediazilla. If you could outline more "appropriate" methods
for getting you to do something several of us expressed support for,
then please state them.

> you've certainly placed me in a defensive
> position; and having to explain to you why your rather request
> has a lower priority than other things.

Well I understand that you are very very busy. Again, if you had
responded to the concept either in private, on mediazilla, or on
wikien-l, and not just on a private mailing list, things would have
gone a bit smoother.

As you raised the issue of appropriateness, I don't believe anyone's
private summary judgments are appropriate for an open project.

Sorry to put you on the spot, Cary. I was simply asking for some open
discussion. I do not understand what forces compel you to discuss an
open project's matters through only private means, and I don't care,
really. I was just asking for an open dispute resolution mailing list.

-Steven

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

Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?

Geoffrey




________________________________
From: stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:22:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

Cary Bass wrote:

> You have not gained any additional support.

Open discussion is of course the first step in gaining support.

We've been waiting for your participation, as you seem to be the
functionary in charge of starting new lists. Now that you are
participating in an open discussion, we can sort of resolve any issues
people might have with it.

> If I see nothing more than this by July 27, I will close the bug as >WONTDO

Well, that gives us three full days. This after you had been
non-responsive for almost a month. I understand that you are a
functionary, and do things in a functionary way, but I would
respectfully ask for more time. A whole week even.

> The appropriate thing for you to have done is to put a note on
> the bugzilla

I filed the report on mediazilla. No response. What then would I have
"put a note on the bugzilla" about, apart from my filing the
request/bug?

> or advertised it on the wiki and asked people to make comments > on the bug before you sent an email such as this to
> foundation-l.

Hm. All I did was start a 100 message thread on wikien-l, and a
request on mediazilla. If you could outline more "appropriate" methods
for getting you to do something several of us expressed support for,
then please state them.

> you've certainly placed me in a defensive
> position; and having to explain to you why your rather request
> has a lower priority than other things.

Well I understand that you are very very busy. Again, if you had
responded to the concept either in private, on mediazilla, or on
wikien-l, and not just on a private mailing list, things would have
gone a bit smoother.

As you raised the issue of appropriateness, I don't believe anyone's
private summary judgments are appropriate for an open project.

Sorry to put you on the spot, Cary. I was simply asking for some open
discussion. I do not understand what forces compel you to discuss an
open project's matters through only private means, and I don't care,
really. I was just asking for an open dispute resolution mailing list.

-Steven

_______________________________________________
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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?
>

Why don't you go have a peek at the archives instead of bringing what
you characterize as a "cesspool" over here?

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

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

2009/7/23 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:

> Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?


wikien-l is full of useful and relevant stuff about en:wp. It's not
very cesspooly these days, really! Mostly.


- d.

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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, David Gerard<dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
>
>> Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?
>
>
> wikien-l is full of useful and relevant stuff about en:wp. It's not
> very cesspooly these days, really! Mostly.

Its important to note that our current setup was not always as it is
today. Wikipedia-l was once for a time the main mailing list, until
wikien-l localized discussion to the English Wikipedia. In the context
of dispute resolution mailing lists, my request can be considered both
redundant and unnecessary, if one considers the two current lists
(arbitration and mediation) to be satisfactory. Of course those lists
are closed lists, and do not satisfy any requirement or need except
for internalized discussion. I was on Medcom for over three years (off
and on) and I think I wrote the mediation list once. Which raises
another plain issue that those two lists are inaccurately titled:
they are not arbitration or mediation lists as much as they are arbcom
and medcom lists.

In any case, if I understand Geoffry's comment correctly, this would
be the second time we've seen a suggestion of "go set up your
Wikimedia-related mailing list somewhere else" or, put another way,
"go Google yourself." If there was any substance in the comment, its
easy enough to defeat simply by pointing to the existence of other
purposed mailing lists.

-Steven

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

I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
this discussion back to the project-specific mailing list or the project
itself so to the community for that project can be consulted.

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

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
Mike.lifeguard<mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
> Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
> this discussion back to the project-specific mailing list or the project
> itself so to the community for that project can be consulted.

Mike, thanks for your comments. Again, there are several reasons why
this at least can be, if not should be, discussed here and not just on
wikien-l:

1) Mailing lists are foundation projects hosted on the wikimedia.org domain.
2) New lists are set up by a foundation employee who acts in an
official functionary capacity.
3) The resolution-l list would not be limited to en.wiki, and an
eventual forked for English only usage will, appropriately, be
discussed there.
4) The issue was discussed on wikien-l and, for some unknown reason,
the responsible party did not bother to participate in dealing with a
general matter that is, correctly or not, officially charged to him.
5) This list has higher visibility.

Any similar questions, comments, or concerns?

-Steven

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

Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be valuable to all projects.




________________________________
From: Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:06:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
this discussion back to the project-specific mailing list or the project
itself so to the community for that project can be consulted.

Thanks,
-Mike
_______________________________________________
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

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
> Mike.lifeguard<mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
>> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
>> Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
>> this discussion back to the project-specific mailing list or the project
>> itself so to the community for that project can be consulted.
>
> Mike, thanks for your comments. Again, there are several reasons why
> this at least can be, if not should be, discussed here and not just on
> wikien-l:
>
> 1) Mailing lists are foundation projects hosted on the wikimedia.org
> domain.
> 2) New lists are set up by a foundation employee who acts in an
> official functionary capacity.
> 3) The resolution-l list would not be limited to en.wiki, and an
> eventual forked for English only usage will, appropriately, be
> discussed there.
> 4) The issue was discussed on wikien-l and, for some unknown reason,
> the responsible party did not bother to participate in dealing with a
> general matter that is, correctly or not, officially charged to him.
> 5) This list has higher visibility.
>
> Any similar questions, comments, or concerns?
>
> -Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I am not sure whether you realize for instance that in Russian Wikipedia
we have conflict resolution rules VERY MUCH different from those in
English Wikipedia? I am not sure I want to follow a discussion of issues
which are specific to en.wp (to which I am not a regular contributor) on
this list.

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>wrote:

> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM,
> > Mike.lifeguard<mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, this is really not something that needs discussion on
> >> foundation-l. This concerns English Wikipedia, and not the wider
> >> Wikimedia community or the Foundation itself. Please consider moving
> >> this discussion back to the project-specific mailing list or the project
> >> itself so to the community for that project can be consulted.
> >
> > Mike, thanks for your comments. Again, there are several reasons why
> > this at least can be, if not should be, discussed here and not just on
> > wikien-l:
> >
> > 1) Mailing lists are foundation projects hosted on the wikimedia.org
> > domain.


And english wikipedia has several mailing lists to deal with its own issues.
Foundation-l is for wikimedia-wide issues.
This is like justifying that discussing english wikipedia issues would be ok
on the spanish wikinews mailing list (because both are mailing lists hosts
on wikimedia server)


>
> > 2) New lists are set up by a foundation employee who acts in an
> > official functionary capacity.


The "functionaries" thing is an english wikipedia thing. New wikis, new
mailing lists, everything.. is also setup by employees. Yet we have a
mailing list for commons, a mailing list for french wikipedia, etc


>
> > 3) The resolution-l list would not be limited to en.wiki, and an
> > eventual forked for English only usage will, appropriately, be
> > discussed there.


And where's consensus that other wikis want THAT? And it should be proposed
on meta if you want to claim support from all wikimedia


>
> > 4) The issue was discussed on wikien-l and, for some unknown reason,
> > the responsible party did not bother to participate in dealing with a
> > general matter that is, correctly or not, officially charged to him.


So? Moving it up to global mailing list where most people won't care about
english wikipedia will solve it?
If you have troubles with cary deal them with him, stop polluting inboxes
from unrelated parties


>
> > 5) This list has higher visibility.


Alright, so it's all about shouting louder to get what you want


>
> >
> > Any similar questions, comments, or concerns?
> >
> > -Steven
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> I am not sure whether you realize for instance that in Russian Wikipedia
> we have conflict resolution rules VERY MUCH different from those in
> English Wikipedia? I am not sure I want to follow a discussion of issues
> which are specific to en.wp (to which I am not a regular contributor) on
> this list.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be valuable to all projects.

Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that
wikien-l played for years, and for which there are several disjointed
on-wiki portals for doing certain things. For a long time I myself
stated that handling things on-list was inferior to doing things
on-wiki, and thus I agree with this proposals critics to some degree.
But in fact on-wiki dispute resolution is scattered, disjointed, and
in need of upgrades that integrate its disjointed and constituent
components into a better working machine.

The only thing controversial about it is that I am the one proposing
it, and I don't really even understand why that in and of itself
should be particularly problematic, if people can simply deal with the
concept without basing their objection in privately made criticisms
and characterizations.

-Steven

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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:58 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Geoffrey Plourde<geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be valuable to all projects.
>
> Its a very simple idea, and one which sort of fills a role that
> wikien-l played for years, and for which there are several disjointed
> on-wiki portals for doing certain things. For a long time I myself
> stated that handling things on-list was inferior to doing things
> on-wiki, and thus I agree with this proposals critics to some degree.
> But in fact on-wiki dispute resolution is scattered, disjointed, and
> in need of upgrades that integrate its disjointed and constituent
> components into a better working machine.
>
> The only thing controversial about it is that I am the one proposing
> it, and I don't really even understand why that in and of itself
> should be particularly problematic, if people can simply deal with the
> concept without basing their objection in privately made criticisms
> and characterizations.
>
> -Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
to wikien-l, /please/.

-Chad

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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad<innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
> this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
> to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
> to wikien-l, /please/.

If you could offer some actual substantive points - as I have in
point-by-point form - for why this belongs elsewhere, I might just do
exactly that.

Though crossposting is also an option, if one likes integrating things as I do.

-Steven

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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad<innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
>> this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
>> to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
>> to wikien-l, /please/.
>
> If you could offer some actual substantive points - as I have in
> point-by-point form - for why this belongs elsewhere, I might just do
> exactly that.
>
> Though crossposting is also an option, if one likes integrating things as I do.
>
> -Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Pedro pretty much outlined my views already. I was going to write
a point-by-point rebuttal as to why this doesn't belong on foundation-l,
but I decided not to. Honestly, I thought it was pretty damn obvious
that this doesn't belong on foundation-l.

-Chad

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

Pedro Sanchez commented on a few of my points, but mistakenly removed
my byline, making Yaroslav look like the author. These are responses
to Pedro's comments.

Pedro Sanchez<pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:
> And english wikipedia has several mailing lists to deal with its own issues.
> Foundation-l  is for wikimedia-wide issues.
The point is that to a certain degree we can make requests for new
lists, which are handled by the foundation, and hosted by the
foundation. And of course a new list has certain foundation-wide
effects, so that's yet another reason. But if your criticism of this
discussion here boils down to something like "go away" please just say
so.

> This is like justifying that discussing english wikipedia issues would be ok
> on the spanish wikinews mailing list (because both are mailing lists hosts
> on wikimedia server)
Since the beginning, all Wikimedia-wide issues have been discussed in
English, and we have seen serious representation, even if not ample or
even sufficient representation, from other languages and cultures.
Every non-English wiki and mailing list was started by a request made
in English to the then-current proper venue: Wikipedia-l, wikien-l,
intlwiki-l, wikitech-l, etc. have all been 'proper venues' at one
time or another.

> The "functionaries" thing is an english wikipedia thing. New wikis, new
> mailing lists, everything.. is also setup by employees. Yet we have a
> mailing list for commons, a mailing list for french wikipedia, etc
I did not know functionaries-l is for en.wiki only. Generally, the
proper form would then be functionaries-en-l. But this gets into the
general problematic issues regarding how a global project is largely
managed by a small group of English-speaking people. Forming a
U.S.-based foundation also contributes to the problem.

But in reality, things have to get done, and we do them in English. I
did start a discussion on wikien-l, but foundation personnel did not
participate. Talking about things here may mean that wikien-l people
don't participate, but I can rectify that oversight with a quick
announce note there.

> And where's consensus that other wikis want THAT? And it should be proposed
> on meta if you want to claim support from all wikimedia
We're discussing it now. A meta page is a possibility.

> So? Moving it up to global mailing list where most people won't care about
> english wikipedia will solve it?
Hm. Interesting point that people on foundation-l have not even a
tangential interest in its flagship project. I mean, just to break it
down for you, en.wiki has ~3 million articles, while de.wiki has ~1
million. Throw in some kind of quantitative/qualitative differentials
between English und German language facility and usage, and that 3-1
ratio becomes something like 19-1. Hence whatever substance was in
your comment is negated.

> If you have troubles with cary deal them with him,
I emailed him directly. No response. I tried starting a 100 email
thread on wikein-l. No notice. I filed a bug/request. No response. The
point, I suppose, is that I am dealing with him, and anyone whom might
be treating him like a functionary.

> stop polluting inboxes from unrelated parties
This is unnecessary. If you don't want to read something, don't.

> Alright, so it's all about shouting louder to get what you want
Well, I did wait patiently for a month. And I do sashimi BS well
enough. I just don't see how any of that equates to "shouting."

-Steven

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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Chad<innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pedro pretty much outlined my views already. I was going to write
> a point-by-point rebuttal as to why this doesn't belong on foundation-l,
> but I decided not to. Honestly, I thought it was pretty damn obvious
> that this doesn't belong on foundation-l.

I just responded to Pedro's views.

But to your credit, "pretty damn obvious [this doesn't belong here]"
is your most substantive argument yet. I don't quite know to respond
to it.

-Steven

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

Hoi,
What do you not understand ? It has been explained to you that the en
approach is not compatible with what happens elsewhere. This list is
explicitly NOT about the en policies. You have been politely asked to go
away.. Now what does it take for you to move on with this nonsense ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/7/24 stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Chad<innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't care who's proposing it, to be honest. My issue is that
> > this thread does not belong on foundation-l, which others seem
> > to agree since I first said so some 14 posts ago. Take it back
> > to wikien-l, /please/.
>
> If you could offer some actual substantive points - as I have in
> point-by-point form - for why this belongs elsewhere, I might just do
> exactly that.
>
> Though crossposting is also an option, if one likes integrating things as I
> do.
>
> -Steven
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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