scribe, and has been doing
so since June 11. This includes messages from the OTRS notification system.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
my own participation in the project, and I know they have, to varying
degrees, affected the way that other women participate in various projects.
I don't know whether there's anything that could change most of them,
either.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
speak for other projects, but the account
creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and links
directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the
project. By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the
privacy policy,
On 3 August 2010 16:38, wrote:
> Risker wrote:
> > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> >
> >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
> >>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to ma
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima wrote:
> Hi Risker. let's go by question.
>
> *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> > place where all Wikimedians can at least
somehow considered not representative of
the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
"chapter" seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
members seem to not be considered part
On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker wrote:
> > This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
> > elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> > the movement, and that
On 1 February 2012 17:38, Stuart West wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > it gives the impression that the current three
> > elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> > the movement It
> > concerns m
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> > In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
> > Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
> > basis in fact to say tha
es get mirrored all over the web and are
well outside our control.
I can understand why legislators will have to really think carefully about
this one. Even within our own communities, there are wildly different
opinions on this issue.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2012 12:30, Delirium wrote:
raise
your concerns than a WMF-wide mailing list intended to deal with
cross-project or all-project issues. An individual editor being banned on
one specific project does not meet that threshold.
Risker
On 11 March 2012 12:49, James Heilman wrote:
> Great now if only that where true. With
;dream" of families having their own reference library to
considering such printed materials obsolete.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ssing this particular series, but my instinct is
that the English Wikipedia community has learned from past experiences that
having major public discussions about how to "address" certain types of
vandals and vandalism can often turn out to be a primer in how to vandalize
(or be seen by
d Gerard on this one; I'm not seeing
an upside to this practice, and a huge number of downsides. Strongly
encourage the project to revisit this.
Risker/Anne
On 10 July 2011 13:08, wrote:
> Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail
> a notarized stat
On 10 July 2011 16:28, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker wrote:
>
> > The next question becomesand what does this "trusted person" do with
> the
> > information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much
> >
se the
clerk just happened to step away from the till for a few minutes?
If it requires more time to do due diligence, then it will take more time.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
the results, who has been harmed?
> >
> >'
>
> Months, not extra days, dude.
>
Jussi, I have no idea why you think it would take months to carry out due
diligence on these votes, or months to release the results. Perhaps you
should explain why you think that.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ified_login>)
You get one vote, Milos. Your bots do not get to vote. Your auxiliary
account does not get to vote, unless you forego voting on your main
account.
Risker/Anne
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/en#Rules
___
fou
Perhaps a little explanation as to why we are having a second steward
election this calendar year might be helpful; it's not entirely clear to me,
at least.
As well, will currently seated stewards be undergoing review?
Risker/Anne
On 22 August 2011 00:41, Benjamin Chen wrote:
> Are
wipe at chapters at all - without exception, the chapters are
enthusiastic local drivers of the Wikimedia vision, regardless of their size
or location. I have the sense that several chapters have found themselves
overwhelmed by the volume of donations they've received, and a
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions
> about
> > chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
> > time around. In the "
motivating
for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal
relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a
chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF
standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> >
> > It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> > Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
> of
> > t
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker wrote:
> >>..
> > Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is
> > *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current"
&
Chapter
board members as well is quite accurate. (I'm not as sure as she about the
WMF's intentions toward chapters; I have a feeling they've not really
figured out their own vision of chapters, which makes things more confusing
for everyone.)
Risker/Anne
hat many would
> be willing to pay for, given the hordes of people beating down our doors
> demanding just that...
>
> oh, wait.
>
>
They already exist, and have for years. We call them "mirrors.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailin
on to filtering, particularly those that seem
to focus on "the content should be displayed in the way the authors
intended", I'm concerned there would be equally significant opposition to
even this simple matter.
Risker/Anne
___
foundati
On 7 September 2011 17:18, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Risker wrote:
> > On 7 September 2011 10:48, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> The closest we could come to a neutral filtering sys
eing looted. I'm pretty
sure that one would have crossed the PG (or equivalent) in many countries.
Sexually explicit pages cross the threshold in many countries as well,
obviously, and there are some that would be rated as "Adults only" in many
countries too.
But we already know t
On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Risker wrote:
> > On 7 September 2011 17:18, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Risker wrote:
> >> > On 7 Septe
On 8 September 2011 01:57, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Risker wrote:
> > On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >> Every version of Mozilla has included the "Dont load images" option.
> >> And it is simple to find
ur post is "if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
posts in the future.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
founda
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski wrote:
> Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
> > The implication of your post is "if you're a woman from
> > the US, your opinion is invalid". Your post here did not further the
> > discussion in any way, and I pol
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker wrote:
> > On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of fi
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> > Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
> about
> > in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
> to
> > oth
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker wrote:
> > I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
> > covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
> > here are those of
if it is an appropriate
> Illustration for the subject.
No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in
several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable,
but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that
overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other
factors.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
.
>
>
Perhaps someone who can understand Italian well might be able to provide a
brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google
translate? I am unclear what the "new" law says that is leading
Italian-speaking Wikipedians to conside
munity. It's not clear that the discussion has reached
> an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be
> improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc.
>
>
One has to wonder how the "community" will be able to discuss unlock
on this
issue, that community needs to be the focus.
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own
local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundat
xpertise, with
the exception of the "Founder" seat which is approved on a regular basis.
The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to the
community or the chapters or to any other external agent.
This is all available for review in the Bylaws
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
> > Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
> certain
> > rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates
> will
> > be appointed in
ulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
have the same effect. I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.
On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> >
> > Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system
> seems
> > to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current sys
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've seen it in operation.
>
> Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
> directly use categories from
On 10 October 2011 19:12, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:43:22PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > > > >
&g
On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on
> any
> > system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are
> not
>
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Risker,
>
> The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
> word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in
> [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex".
&g
On 10 October 2011 20:52, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:09PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]]
>
>
>
> What are you trying to ...
>
> Let's try a question like:
>
> ...Can you block [[:Ca
particular
principle, one on which the Wikimedia projects are heavily dependent. It
does, however, identify a boundary (repeating defamatory content) that bears
some watching.
Risker
[1]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hyperlinking-doesnt-constitute-defamation-supreme-court-rules
me of Office Hours generally.
I'd also like to suggest consideration be given to doing a "double" office
hour session for topic areas that impact projects globally and involve
editors from just about every time zone. Reading IRC "minu
ganization (including the WMF) "to copy, distribute,
transmit...[or]... adapt" [1] the content, provided that appropriate
attribution is given and the resulting information is released under the
same license?
Risker/Anne
[1] Excerpt from text of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3
Hi Klaus - Since it appears that this deletion is clearly labeled an OFFICE
action, have you communicated with the WMF legal counsel? DCMA takedowns
are not the only reason for OFFICE deletions.
Risker
On 11 November 2011 13:16, Klaus Graf wrote:
> WMF has deleted some German stamps w
on-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
As far as I know, General Counsel Geoff Brigham has a page on Meta.
Philippe has also provided the email address to reach the entire legal
team.
Risker
eoff would respond to you, I don't think you
have grounds to complain that he is not responding to you directly and
publicly if you have not contacted him directly and publicly. Here is a
link to his Meta talk page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham
Risker
___
ssing something critical here, I believe it was the Research
Committee, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice
banner. Whether or not that is within their scope is a separate issue
that should be discussed elsewhere.
I am pleased to
age to
grant permission for it to be reproduced here so that the rest of us aren't
left in the dark about who said what.
I don't begridge scholars carrying out approved research with Wiki?edians
who volunteer to do so; in fact, I've responded to several requests myself.
I do, however
Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify
that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users
with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users.
Risker/Anne
2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux
> I do, howev
th, and to have it well
documented.
Something that has never been clear is the reason that English Wikipedia
editors were identified as the preferred target; there does not appear to
be anything in this study that is particularly oriented toward Wikipedia
activity.
Risker/Anne
2011/12/10 Jérôme He
Just think...if it is included in an online advertisement, Wikipedia could
use SOPA to bring down the film for copyright infringement
Risker
On 17 December 2011 06:20, Ole Palnatoke Andersen wrote:
> It was mentioned on the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee
> Mailing L
Since that 0:00 UTC is always confusing to me, would I be correct to assume
that this would be taking place Wednesday evening in North America?
Risker
On 19 December 2011 19:28, Steven Walling wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I think most Foundation-l subscribers know Philippe Beaudette
er what message you are trying to get through to
people, and try to find a way to explain what your concerns are without
making vague allusions and being so combative.
Best,
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
bout *last year's* fundraiser. The
actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
is called "learning from experience", and it is a talent that is highly
prized within the WMF family of projects. After all, there is not a one of
us who has not made an er
On 31 December 2011 21:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker wrote:
> > Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken
> today,
> > you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
> > actions you&#x
On 31 December 2011 21:40, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker wrote:
> > Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
> > the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
> > spending priorities of the
On 31 December 2011 21:46, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker wrote:
> > I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you
> who
> > have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially
> about
> > how an
? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
of Wikimedians) be considered?
Thanks,
Risker/Anne
On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima wrote:
> The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
> Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees fo
12 million
articles and files across the WMF group is probably not the best way to
assess the overall quality of the project. You are, as always, entitled to
your own views on that perspective.
Risker/Anne
On 16 September 2010 15:29, Peter Damian wrote:
> > How would locking Wikipedia d
ly since SUL. I am sure someone can run a script to
determine how many "non-editing" English WP accounts have a partner
"editing" account on another project.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
rst closing poll and the second one. Of course, having it deployed
doesn't mean it will actually be used: there are 30% fewer articles on
pending changes now than there were at its peak, and we never did get past
1600 articles in the first trial because very few administrators felt the
cost/be
ave the authority to make that statement, it was your place to have
corrected him forthwith. How unfortunate that you have placed a respected
developer in this position.
Risker/Anne
[1]
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=pending+changes
On 28 Septem
and contrary to popular belief, they're a
lot harder to replace than they used to be. Your stats should tell you
that.
Risker/Anne
On 28 September 2010 16:39, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/9/28 Risker :
> > Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
way. ALL of them were told they were voting for another trial, with the
tool left on in the interim, not for permanent installation. And even with
it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for continuing
dropped 10% in two weeks.
You're losing the hearts and minds battle here
it isn't
> really necessary for them to be involved in achieving a negative result.
>
>
The developers were being focused on because they have been the face of this
project from Day One, and all communication with the community has been
through them.
Risker/Anne
__
On 28 September 2010 18:35, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support
> for
> > continuing dropped 10% in two weeks.
> >
> > You're losing
y of our
collective time, energy and powers of persuasion. With that in mind, it's
almost impossible to consider developing a second trial, since it doesn't
seem like it will matter what criteria for continued use the project
determines.
Risker/Anne
_
appropriate to our own project.
Risker/Anne
On 28 September 2010 20:25, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker wrote:
>
> > From: Risker
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September
> 27
> > To: "Wikimedia Fou
On 28 September 2010 23:19, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> Aside from the point already made regarding the desires of projects
> other than the English Wikipedia - I guess I struggle to see what's so
> demotivating about the prospect of a feature
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> > Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
> > working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
> > widely agreed that it would
On looking at the bugzillas, I note that many of the more serious issues
identified in the Roadmap are not addressed. I will leave it to RobLa to
explain that rationale.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e for wide-scale use. Perhaps that is the key
difference between these two community types: one places more emphasis on
making cohesive group decisions, while the other more strongly encourages a
range of solutions. I don't have any answers, just observations.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ly, one of the "selling points" of FR has been the likelihood of
increasing the editor base, presumably of editors who carry out 100+ edits a
month. The de:WP experience seems to contradict that, which I admit
surprises me. Perhaps that is one metric to take off the ta
I'm not sure that the
board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws
to indicate that.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> >
> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there
our focus. (I don't know Arne's work well enough to
comment, but I extend the same good faith to him.)
Now...would someone please explain internal-L to us? Thanks.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
g
information on how to address perceived privacy violations, we include a
recommendation to those who use Gmail to review all of their Google-related
accounts and ensure that they remove all links.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedi
tested by various safety organizations.
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it
is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
required.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.
On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned
> > it
> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> > required.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
>
> Th
way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> >> > required.
> >> >
> >> > Risker/Anne
> >>
> >> The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of
> >> the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were s
ikipedia, as I have heard reports
that there's significant bias on other Wikipedias as well.) Anyone who's
tried to rebalance an article that gives undue weight to negative issues, or
to remove salacious trivia about a BLP subject, knows how incredibly
frustrating it can be to bring
lved users
don't include userboxes in their userspace (myself included), or don't use
the userboxes that involve sex, race, age or nationality. It strikes me that
I see probably 50 language-skill-related userboxes for every userbox that
confirms geographic location or sex.
Risker/Anne
___
nging for
subjects of articles to find their way to submit a request to have their
article fixed, too. And remember that 1:960 ratio - even if every active
editor on enwp made it their business to do nothing but maintenance and
improvement of existing articles, we couldn't keep up with the workload.
Risker/Anne
[1] <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: 18 November 2010 18:51
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
To: risker...@gmail.com
In a message dated 11/18/2010 3:50:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
"We are extraordinarily ineffective at prov
ou will agree that the reporting made under the applicable
government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the
personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is
consistent across the entire non-profit sector.
So...could someone pl
ndation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to the WMF for the use of this
information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that,
and it never was.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
this and with the
appropriate subject line, about accessibility generally speaking, but this
isn't that thread.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/found
convenient way to notify the
appropriate parties of how to address these issues.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
this issue, and I don't see any historical evidence
of committees prior to 2009 having addressed this issue either, including
the time that you were on the committee.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14 March 2011 11:03, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 March 2011 15:01, Risker wrote:
>
> > David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words,
>
>
> The link to your precise words is there. It's what you actually said.
>
> Or are you claiming t
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
