Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l open for business, with changes
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.comwrote: After reviewing the comments of foundation-l participants over the last few days, we've come up with a few changes that we hope will ultimately improve the tenor and scope of discussions. To start, we're placing two participants on temporary moderation: Thomas Dalton and WJhonson. The conversations that have been most problematic recently were those that involved one or both users. We do not intend to place them or any other users on permanent moderation at this time, however. When appropriate, we will be using moderation more often, for short periods of time when we feel doing so will allow cooler heads to prevail. The idea behind moderation has never been punitive, but it's often been treated as such by many, and as a result, we have not used it as often as we could have. Going forward, our intent is that being placed on moderation should not be viewed as a slight, or as a punishment, but as a way to retain civility within a discussion. Second, we're adding a soft post limit that, for the time being, will kick in at 30 posts per month. At that point, we will, at our discretion, place members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion. With these changes, our goal is not to stifle anyone, but to avoid the situation where a few voices dominate the conversation, and the arguments, often off-topic, that have inhibited important discussions recently. We do not feel, for example, that specific users need to be permanently moderated; however, all users, including prolific posters, should bear in mind that should their posts become off-topic, overly argumentative, or uncivil, they may be moderated temporarily. We leave open the possibility that other changes may be useful in the future, so ideas for improvement going forward are always welcome, either at the Meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l or via e-mail, at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org. As of this post, the list is now unmoderated. We welcome your thoughts on this issue. Sincerely, Austin Hair Ryan Lomonaco As a spectator of most of the nonsense that goes on here, I think it's great that the list admins are finally doing something about it. Hopefully these steps will be sufficient. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: foundation-announce-l
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: Sometimes, fighting through the high traffic lists to find announcements is a huge problem... Philippe Quite the contrary, it is an even larger problem to be subscribed to an increasingly large number of ever fragmenting lists. Additionally, a read-only announce list would serve to stifle community discussion of WMF announcements. If the Foundation wants to have an announce list and then cross post all announcements to announce-l and foundation-l it wouldn't be so problematic but I doubt such a list would have a large number of subscribers. The simple solution there would be to subscribe foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org to the announce-l list. I think it would be beneficial. Some people really would like to see only the important stuff and not the discussion in between. And definitely not meta-threads relating to how the list works (like this one). -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Update on struck votes issue on SecurePoll
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Philippe Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which had been previously struck in the election for Wikimedia Board of Trustees. We believe the votes that are still struck are validly struck; if there is a dispute, any user is encouraged to contact the Election Committee (board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org) or any member personally for clarification. Is there any reason why some, but not all, super-seeded votes have also been struck? There are a number of cases, but picking one I know personally, strikeDetails 15:49, 28 July 2009 Ragesossen.wikipedia.org /strike Details 14:06, 9 August 2009Ragesossen.wikipedia.org Yeah, I noticed this quite a bit also. If a voter voted more that once, it seems like all but their last vote is greyed out usually - only sometimes are first votes struck. Not sure if second/third/etc. votes need to be struck just because the user voted again or not, based on that. -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo
Can you guys air your dirty laundry in private? This is not really an appropriate topic to be sending to all the list subscribers, I'd think. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hairadh...@gmail.com wrote: I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think likely to try to pursue the topic further, for a period of a week or so. It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't killfile the thread (whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted below somewhere) was substandard, as far as explanations go. Note again that moderation does not mean that you're prevented from posting to the list, only that we look at your posts before sending them on. Had you posted on another topic, your message would have been sent on within a few hours. 1) I did post on another topic. 2) Who is we? You? 3) A few hours later is not acceptable, particularly in contexts where discussion moves quickly. I explained my actions in the original thread, but as a courtesy I also replied privately to the only e-mail I received from you reiterating that the thread was killed. I never received a second e-mail. You said nothing courteous in your message. The point is that if you think a simple see my last post in that thread qualifies as either courteous or informative, then - nothing personal - you just need to be replaced. I am generally terse if not succinct, but I don't know what about this suggests that I'm overworked. Again, you were not blocked. You're playing a little semantic game with yourself, Austin - I said blocked/moderated, not blocked. Now consider for a minute what I actually said - that you as moderator are obligated to give notice of blocking and/or moderation. Do you disagree with me? The only message from you that I held from posting was the one to that thread, Yes, and in that post I indicated I would not continue posting to that thread on this list. Assuming your moderating me was valid in the first place, you evaluated my post incorrectly - the evidence being that its still has not been posted. and that went for everyone, not just you. This doesn't even make sense. What went for everyone? And again, I did post in that thread giving notice. No, you said, in inappropriately teenage sysadmin-speak consider this thread killfiled. Even if I had know you were the moderator, I still could not have regarded the content of your message as anything special. -Stevertigo ___ 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: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the National Portrait Gallery ...
Perhaps everybody should take that advice. I find it mildly amusing that suddenly we have a list full of legal experts. Can we let those relevant people do what the will now and stop speculating/guessing/etc. here and elsewhere? --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/7/11 geni geni...@gmail.com: The case is under English and welsh law. For solid legal reasons the NPG will be willing to make a reasonable settlement. Since we know that the NPG are not completely stupid and English law in any case lacks statutory damages it would seem to be somewhat improbable that any course of action we can take can make them insist on an unreasonable settlement. You can't know that and it's not your place to guess. Just stay out of it unless Derrick asks for your help. ___ 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: [Foundation-l] Wikizine at foundaiton-l?
I also think it's a good idea. It contains a lot of useful information and would be valuable for subscribers to this list. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: David Gerard wrote: 2009/6/28 Walter Vermeir wal...@wikipedia.be: Probaly useful for those who do not know it; an expamle It comes out infrequently enough that I suggest that posting it here regularly would be an excellent idea. Could generate discussion, too. And reader submissions! I am in favor of this. It's certainly relevant to this list. Cary ___ 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
