Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFT5: what practical benefits has it had?

[Dario Taraborelli]

(cross-posting my reply from wiki-research-l)

The complete reports on WMF research on AFT5 can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback

The tool is currently deployed on a random 10% sample of English Wikipedia 
articles so it's not surprising most readers/editors don't see it very often. 
We are currently collecting about 4K unique feedback messages per day: 
http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft5

As for the quality of feedback – as judged by community members and readers – 
we have some preliminary usage data coming from the FeedbackPage: 
http://toolserver.org/~dartar/fp/ as well as results based on blind assessment 
by Wikipedians that we ran during the early stages of AFT5 research (see the 
"Quality assessment" sections in the research reports above).

We will be publishing shortly an update on FeedbackPage data, but as the 
feature is not rolled out on the entire project and not many editors or readers 
know how to find the FeedbackPage (i.e. the only place where comments can be 
filtered, flagged and moderated), these results should not be taken as 
conclusive.

A full roll out of AFT5 on the entire English Wikipedia is scheduled for Q4 
2012.

Dario

On Sep 6, 2012, at 1:33 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:

> 
> Forwarding questions from Research-l with permission, with the hope that 
> these will spark discussion here on Wikimedia-l.
> 
> RJensen:
> "Comments: I have not seen any editor make actual use of the Article
> Feedback tool -- are there examples? Yes Wikipedians are very proud
> of their vast half-billion-person audience. However they do not ask
> "what features are most useful for a high school student or teacher/
> a university student/ etc""
> 
> Pine:
> This is a very interesting question. What have been the benefits of AFT5? I 
> have seen complaints about spam and suppressible material being written in 
> AFT5. What benefits has it had?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] AFT5: what practical benefits has it had?

[ENWP Pine]

Forwarding questions from Research-l with permission, with the hope that these 
will spark discussion here on Wikimedia-l.

RJensen:
"Comments: I have not seen any editor make actual use of the Article
Feedback tool -- are there examples? Yes Wikipedians are very proud
of their vast half-billion-person audience. However they do not ask
"what features are most useful for a high school student or teacher/
a university student/ etc""

Pine:
This is a very interesting question. What have been the benefits of AFT5? I 
have seen complaints about spam and suppressible material being written in 
AFT5. What benefits has it had?

Thanks,
Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Nathan]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:
>> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
>> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
>> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
>> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
>> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
>> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.
>
> Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
> about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?

Maybe not if you're referring to a current snapshot of the project,
but of course that may not always be the case. Even the failure to
effectively address vandalism seems like it could put the organization
at risk, if they've lost the protection afforded to service providers.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Dalton]

On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:
> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
> barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
> rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

Even if they have lost safe harbor protections, is there anything illegal
about the content? What do they need Section 230 protection from?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Nathan]

The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and censoring any mention of Wikimedia or
Wikivoyage. He has even resorted to removing criticism of Internet
Brands or its Wikitravel management, whether or not that criticism
mentions forking directly or indirectly, calling it either "vandalism"
or claiming to be editing others comments "to conform with policy."

Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whatever imaginary
barrier must exist since they are now firmly in control of all content
rules, site policies and every other aspect of project management.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

[Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]

\o/

Nice!

and I'm wondering how they will sue for importing content that is on free
license...


On 6 September 2012 10:21, Alice Wiegand  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
> statement about the travel guide RfC
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide :
>
>
> Through the RfC, it is clear our community has reached consensus in
> favor of the creation of a travel guide. The Board supports the
> community decision to create a dedicated project for the collection of
> free multilingual travel resources. We believe there is an enormous
> amount of space for multiple wiki-based projects with travel content
> and welcome the contributions of community members from around the
> world.
> We look forward to having a project that can provide additional
> content for other travel sites to reuse and benefit from, which we
> believe this site will do.
>
> As a project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, it will be subject
> to the movement vision, mission, and values, as well as the Foundation
> Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. However, like all other Wikimedia
> projects, the community of contributors is responsible for the
> management and creation of the content, policies, rules, and
> governance of the new project. The community will be responsible for
> organizing the travel guide project, and once they have put all of the
> necessary pieces together and provided them to the Foundation staff,
> the Wikimedia Foundation will make the necessary technical adjustments
> to support the site. We look forward to a new project and appreciate
> the community taking the initiative to make this possible.
>
> As we have reported in a blogpost [1], Internet Brands has filed a
> lawsuit against community members, and, in response, Wikimedia
> Foundation has filed a complaint against Internet Brands [2]. This
> lawsuit by Internet Brands is not going to intimidate the Foundation
> or stop the process.
>
> [1]
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/
> [2]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
>
> Regards, Alice.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
+55 11 97 97 18 884
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Deryck Chan]

In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing -
write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within
the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the
sake of transparency.

On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton wrote:

> Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
>
> So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
> basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
> dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
>
> Tom
>
> On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> > admins
> > > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded
> with
> > > Wiki Travel content.
> > > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public
> statements.
> > > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > > certainly be an "aha" moment).
> >
> >
> > It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> > it, before asserting bad faith?
> >
> > The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> > Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> > they're soft-pedaling this.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Richard Symonds]

Makes interesting reading. Is there anywhere that we can read the IB vs
"the volunteers" documents? Or are they not publicly viewable?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.

So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton 
> wrote:
>
> > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
> admins
> > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> > Wiki Travel content.
> > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> > certainly be an "aha" moment).
>
>
> It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
> it, before asserting bad faith?
>
> The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
> Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
> they're soft-pedaling this.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[David Gerard]

On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton  wrote:

> Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
> mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
> having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
> Wiki Travel content.
> It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
> It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
> underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
> approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
> certainly be an "aha" moment).


It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
it, before asserting bad faith?

The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
they're soft-pedaling this.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

Just to note:

Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.

It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
certainly be an "aha" moment).

If we can't defend the right to fork publicly, then we are hypocrites.

Tom

On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:

> A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
> self explanatory.
>
> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a 
> suit
>  in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers. Over the summer,
> in response to requests generated by our volunteers, the Wikimedia
> community conducted a lengthy Request For 
> Comment (RFC)
> process to facilitate public debate and discussion regarding the benefits
> and challenges of creating a new, Wikimedia Foundation-hosted travel guide
> project. The community extended the RFC at the Wikimedia Foundation Board’s
> request to allow for greater community input, and to encourage input from
> Internet Brands. Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
> of this new project.
>
> Unfortunately, Internet Brands (owner of the travel website Wikitravel)
> has decided to disrupt this process by engaging in litigation against two
> Wikitravel volunteers who are also Wikimedia community members. On August
> 29, Internet Brands sued two volunteer administrators, one based in Los
> Angeles and one in Canada, asserting a variety of claims. The intent of the
> action is clear – intimidate other community volunteers from exercising
> their rights to freely discuss the establishment of a new community focused
> on the creation of a new, not-for-profit travel guide under the Creative
> Commons licenses.
>
> While the suit filed by Internet Brands does not directly name the
> Wikimedia Foundation as a defendant, we believe that we are the real
> target. We feel our only recourse is to file this suit in order to get
> everything on the table and deal head on with Internet Brand’s actions over
> the past few months in trying to impede the creation of this new travel
> project.
>
> Our community and potential new community members are key to the success
> of all of our projects. We will steadfastly and proudly defend our
> community’s right to free speech, and we will support these volunteer
> community members in their legal defense. We do not feel it is appropriate
> for Internet Brands, a large corporation with hundreds of millions of
> dollars in assets, to seek to intimidate two individuals.
>
> This new, proposed project would allow all travel content to be freely
> used and disseminated by anyone for any purpose as long as the content is
> given proper attribution and is offered with the same free-to-use license.
> Internet Brands appears to be attempting to thwart the creation of a new,
> non-commercial travel wiki in a misguided effort to protect its for-profit
> Wikitravel site.
>
> The Wikimedia movement stands in the balance and the Wikimedia Foundation
> will not sit idly by and allow a commercial actor like Internet Brands to
> engage in threats, intimidation and litigation to prevent the organic
> expression of community interest in favor of a new travel project, one that
> is not driven by commercial interests.
>
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> license  or in the public
> domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. We are devoted to
> creating and nurturing free knowledge projects supported by volunteers. Our
> actions today represent the full stride of our commitment to protect the
> Wikimedia movement against the efforts of for-profit entities like Internet
> Brands to prevent communities and volunteers from making their own
> decisions about where and how freely-usable content may be shared.
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/
>
> Kelly Kay, Deputy Gen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[David Gerard]

On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay  wrote:

> Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
> suit
> in
> San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial declaration that
> Internet Brands has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block the
> creation of a new travel oriented, Wikimedia Foundation-owned website in
> response to the request of Wikimedia community volunteers.


I urge everyone to read through the PDF. To be clear: IB is attacking
the freedom to fork; WMF is defending the freedom of free content.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thehelpfulone]

On 6 September 2012 08:18, James Heilman  wrote:

> The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
> But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
>
>
Just to follow up on this, the Board has now published a statement on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide&diff=4099910&oldid=4099573#Board_statement
.

-- 
Thehelpfulone
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi all,

on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
statement about the travel guide RfC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide :


Through the RfC, it is clear our community has reached consensus in
favor of the creation of a travel guide. The Board supports the
community decision to create a dedicated project for the collection of
free multilingual travel resources. We believe there is an enormous
amount of space for multiple wiki-based projects with travel content
and welcome the contributions of community members from around the
world.
We look forward to having a project that can provide additional
content for other travel sites to reuse and benefit from, which we
believe this site will do.

As a project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, it will be subject
to the movement vision, mission, and values, as well as the Foundation
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. However, like all other Wikimedia
projects, the community of contributors is responsible for the
management and creation of the content, policies, rules, and
governance of the new project. The community will be responsible for
organizing the travel guide project, and once they have put all of the
necessary pieces together and provided them to the Foundation staff,
the Wikimedia Foundation will make the necessary technical adjustments
to support the site. We look forward to a new project and appreciate
the community taking the initiative to make this possible.

As we have reported in a blogpost [1], Internet Brands has filed a
lawsuit against community members, and, in response, Wikimedia
Foundation has filed a complaint against Internet Brands [2]. This
lawsuit by Internet Brands is not going to intimidate the Foundation
or stop the process.

[1] 
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/
[2] 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf

Regards, Alice.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[James Heilman]

The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thehelpfulone]

On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

>> Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
>> desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
>> supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
>> of this new project.
> 
> Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official decision?
> By the way there's not been any proper closure/conclusion to the RfC, that's 
> been left too the board too.

Nemo is correct in this matter, whilst the RFC has been closed to discussion, 
there has not been an official outcome. I believe it was intended that the 
Board would decide and make a statement/resolution to state their findings.

Thehelpfulone
Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l