Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 27

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 27

kevin zhang
Yaron,

By deciding to not allow the coc.md in your extension repositories at
gerrit, some people have publicly stated they won't contribute. You choose
a position, others have decided it's not worth the trouble. If you updated
your readme.md to be hostile, that is your own fault and would be advised
to remove such text. This is regardless of if the coc.md file is useful in
repositories. The coc does cover gerrit but as others have noted,  the
method of forcefully adding to hundreds of repositories without discussions
was horrible judgement. Now can we please move on from that? pretty sure
the +2 devs learned to not repeat this in future

Kevin

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:55 PM <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Making PolyGerrit the default ui for gerrit (Paladox)
>    2. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Yaron Koren)
>    3. Escaping wikitext to JSON-valid string in templates (Tom Schulze)
>    4. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Moriel Schottlender)
>    5. Re: Gerrit as a shared community space (Moriel Schottlender)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:55:59 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Paladox <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Making PolyGerrit the default ui for gerrit
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>  The date to switch the default ui is next monday (18/06/18) which will
> give users plenty of time to give there opinion.
> Users can still switch back to the old ui just the new ui is secure.
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T196812#4273184
>
>
>
>
>     On Monday, 11 June 2018, 13:38:20 BST, Paladox <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Hi, i have created this task [1] with i have uploaded this patch [2] to
> make polygerrit the default ui.
> The reason why is upstream are preparing to remove the gwtui very soon. In
> matter of fact upstream have disabled the gwtui on *.googlesource.com.
> Upstream already have this change [3] to remove the ui. Making PolyGerrit
> the default ui will get new users use to the new ui.
> GWTUI will still be available with ui switcher in the footer or you can
> append the url like https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/?polygerrit=0
>
> PolyGerrit is stable, secure and also fast. It also has features that you
> cannot see in gwtui like user status, naming your patchiest (description),
> cc feature and also being able to tell who added you as a reviewer.
> This email is advanced notice before we change the default ui.
> any bugs todo with polygerrit / gerrit can be filled at
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/330/ and we can forward it
> upstream.
>
>
> [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T196812
> [2] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/439444
> [3] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/c/gerrit/+/116790
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:05:11 -0400
> From: Yaron Koren <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGmQEQGor=heXkofgoCH7MO_GLZvqce5nwo=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience harassment
> > online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
> > enforced in parts of the space.
> > I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
> considering
> > potential interactions that I might encounter, and knowing that these
> > interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
> > personal ideal of what such space should be.
>
> Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
> conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
>
> > You stated that as far as you're concerned, there are interactions you
> > purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
>
> I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions that
> are not governed by the CoC - how's that?
>
> > Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume it
> > governs all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
> > apparently, do not.
>
> If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
> Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
> discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia Code
> of Conduct - but as far as enforcement, you're on your own, unlike with the
> real CoC.
>
> Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a potential
> contributor to know who "decided" to embrace this file's statement and who
> didn't? Given the threat of harassment, it seems awfully risky to assume
> that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
>
> -Yaron
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier email.
> > >
> > > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md
> > file
> > >  should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> > covered
> > >  by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
> > >  statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
> > terms
> > >  of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> > >
> > >  For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than an
> > edge
> > >  case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means we
> > don't
> > >  go to that space if we can help it.
> > >
> > >  Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
> > maintainer
> > >  clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal
> > attack
> > >  -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> > >  A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> > comfortable
> > >  speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such spaces
> > all
> > >  the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what
> > your
> > >  statement about how your space is governed means.
> > >
> > >  Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the other
> > >  thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal attack
> > going
> > >  on here.
> >
> > No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
> > established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
> > CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
> that
> > clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really argued
> > against it. Even you note that it's "technically" true, whatever exactly
> > that means.
> >
> > And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it wasn't
> > an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an "opt-out"
> > choice, though at this point it seems to be.)
> >
> > Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
> > directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
> additional
> > security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> > developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives potential
> > contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If, as
> > you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
> > covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> > remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what they're
> > actually getting into.
> >
> > So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is
> it
> > because he would have fewer protections? Clearly, no. It must be
> something
> > about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
> > everyone else's.
> >
> > -Yaron
> >
>
>
> --
> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:06:59 +0200
> From: Tom Schulze <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Escaping wikitext to JSON-valid string in
>         templates
> Message-ID:
>         <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am having trouble escaping and displaying wikitext in a way that is
> JSON-safe. I did some research but none of the provided
> MagicWords/ParserFUnctions/etc seem to be suited for this purpose.
> Please refer to my gitLab snippet <https://gitlab.com/snippets/1723632>
> to see the sample code of the query, template and widget.
>
> My goal is to build up a structure like this using a widget (to load my
> custom JS), a cargo query and finally a template to display the items
> row by row:
>
> <div class="item" data-item='{"content":"data from a mediawiki form
> field"}'>Description</div>
> <div class="item" data-item='{"content":"data from a mediawiki form
> field"}'>Description</div>
>
> The data is taken from a PageForms textarea form field (the user can
> enter any data she wants). This piece of HTML gets parsed by a custom
> Java Script on page load for further processing. As soon as characters
> like single (') or double quotes (") appear, the whole JSON string gets
> messed up and the JavaScript JSON parser throws errors. Even worse, the
> DOM structure becomes fragmented when single quotes appear. So
> client-side fixing w/ JavaScript is impossible/tedious.
>
> Any solution is welcome, also restricting the types of characters used.
> Ideally, I would just need to wrap the parameter passed from the query
> to the template in some kind of Magic Word which escapes/strips out
> unwanted characters.
>
> What options do I have ? I am open for different approaches...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:37:39 -0700
> From: Moriel Schottlender <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
> Message-ID:
>         <CAG7VCKJeOfEfssuq2Rj94iUGVF+ezsp+4kkt=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I'm not going to get into the minutia and details of how the code of
> conduct is or isn't good to work in your repo, that's a separate discussion
> that I won't participate in by choice right now.
>
> I am simply pointing out that your own points made a declaration about how
> working in the space you are in looks like.
>
> In the gerrit commit that started this thing, you, yourself, publicly wrote
> this:
>
>
> *"The Site Settings extension uses a bunch of WMF tools and services for
> its development, including hosting. If some random person sends me a patch
> for Site Settings by email, and I email them back and say "Your code sucks,
> you nitwit" (or worse), am I violating the Wikimedia Code of Conduct?"*
>
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/SiteSettings/+/437555/
>
> This statement, the question itself, and the fact you are asking whether
> this violates the CoC means, to me, and others who are unwilling to work in
> a hostile environment, that you're unsure whether this is acceptable at
> all.
> You might see this question as an innocent attempt to nitpick over the
> specific details of whether by regulation something needs to happen.
> I see it as a hint that you might **actually** think this is an acceptable
> thing to do.
> I don't know if you do. You might think it's not a bad response, but rather
> a funny one. You might think it's acceptable because the original code
> **was** stupid. I know people who think that, and that, for *their* spaces,
> is valid.
>
> But then I choose not to spend time in that space. That's valid too.
> Which is why when Amir said he won't get near your code, he wasn't making a
> personal attack. He was making a conclusion based on what you wrote about
> the way your space operates.
>
> That's not a personal attack no matter how much you try to shift the goal
> post and talk about red herrings.
> That's a consequence, and a reason of why the code of conduct was needed to
> begin with.
>
> You might accept this consequence as acceptable. That's your choice in your
> space.
> But don't throw that on others as if by making a conscious choice to avoid
> spaces that have a danger of being toxic, they're personally attacking you.
>
> Let's go back to the actual discussion at hand, instead.
>
> Moriel
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:05 AM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience harassment
> > > online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
> > > enforced in parts of the space.
> > > I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
> > considering
> > > potential interactions that I might encounter, and knowing that these
> > > interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
> > > personal ideal of what such space should be.
> >
> > Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
> > conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
> >
> > > You stated that as far as you're concerned, there are interactions you
> > > purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
> >
> > I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions that
> > are not governed by the CoC - how's that?
> >
> > > Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume
> it
> > > governs all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
> > > apparently, do not.
> >
> > If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
> > Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
> > discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia
> Code
> > of Conduct - but as far as enforcement, you're on your own, unlike with
> the
> > real CoC.
> >
> > Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a
> potential
> > contributor to know who "decided" to embrace this file's statement and
> who
> > didn't? Given the threat of harassment, it seems awfully risky to assume
> > that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
> >
> > -Yaron
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier
> email.
> > > >
> > > > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a COC.md
> > > file
> > > >  should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> > > covered
> > > >  by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make a
> > > >  statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
> > > terms
> > > >  of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> > > >
> > > >  For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than
> an
> > > edge
> > > >  case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means
> we
> > > don't
> > > >  go to that space if we can help it.
> > > >
> > > >  Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
> > > maintainer
> > > >  clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a personal
> > > attack
> > > >  -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> > > >  A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> > > comfortable
> > > >  speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such
> spaces
> > > all
> > > >  the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of what
> > > your
> > > >  statement about how your space is governed means.
> > > >
> > > >  Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the
> other
> > > >  thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal
> attack
> > > going
> > > >  on here.
> > >
> > > No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
> > > established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
> > > CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
> > that
> > > clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really argued
> > > against it. Even you note that it's "technically" true, whatever
> exactly
> > > that means.
> > >
> > > And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it
> wasn't
> > > an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an
> "opt-out"
> > > choice, though at this point it seems to be.)
> > >
> > > Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
> > > directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
> > additional
> > > security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> > > developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives
> potential
> > > contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If,
> as
> > > you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
> > > covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> > > remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what
> they're
> > > actually getting into.
> > >
> > > So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically? Is
> > it
> > > because he would have fewer protections? Clearly, no. It must be
> > something
> > > about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
> > > everyone else's.
> > >
> > > -Yaron
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:55:11 -0700
> From: Moriel Schottlender <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Gerrit as a shared community space
> Message-ID:
>         <
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Heh, an apology here, my autocorrect "fixed" your name, Yaron. I apologize
> for that and should have caught it.
> ... The trouble of multilingual corrections.
>
> Moriel
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:37 AM Moriel Schottlender <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to get into the minutia and details of how the code of
> > conduct is or isn't good to work in your repo, that's a separate
> discussion
> > that I won't participate in by choice right now.
> >
> > I am simply pointing out that your own points made a declaration about
> how
> > working in the space you are in looks like.
> >
> > In the gerrit commit that started this thing, you, yourself, publicly
> > wrote this:
> >
> >
> > *"The Site Settings extension uses a bunch of WMF tools and services for
> > its development, including hosting. If some random person sends me a
> patch
> > for Site Settings by email, and I email them back and say "Your code
> sucks,
> > you nitwit" (or worse), am I violating the Wikimedia Code of Conduct?"*
> >
> >
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/SiteSettings/+/437555/
> >
> > This statement, the question itself, and the fact you are asking whether
> > this violates the CoC means, to me, and others who are unwilling to work
> in
> > a hostile environment, that you're unsure whether this is acceptable at
> all.
> > You might see this question as an innocent attempt to nitpick over the
> > specific details of whether by regulation something needs to happen.
> > I see it as a hint that you might **actually** think this is an
> acceptable
> > thing to do.
> > I don't know if you do. You might think it's not a bad response, but
> > rather a funny one. You might think it's acceptable because the original
> > code **was** stupid. I know people who think that, and that, for *their*
> > spaces, is valid.
> >
> > But then I choose not to spend time in that space. That's valid too.
> > Which is why when Amir said he won't get near your code, he wasn't making
> > a personal attack. He was making a conclusion based on what you wrote
> about
> > the way your space operates.
> >
> > That's not a personal attack no matter how much you try to shift the goal
> > post and talk about red herrings.
> > That's a consequence, and a reason of why the code of conduct was needed
> > to begin with.
> >
> > You might accept this consequence as acceptable. That's your choice in
> > your space.
> > But don't throw that on others as if by making a conscious choice to
> avoid
> > spaces that have a danger of being toxic, they're personally attacking
> you.
> >
> > Let's go back to the actual discussion at hand, instead.
> >
> > Moriel
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 11:05 AM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> > Quite frankly, I don't blame people who regularly experience
> harassment
> >> > online to avoid spaces where the code of conduct is consciously only
> >> > enforced in parts of the space.
> >> > I, too, don't feel comfortable in joining that space, even for
> >> considering
> >> > potential interactions that I might encounter, and knowing that these
> >> > interactions, depending where they happen, may not be dealt with to my
> >> > personal ideal of what such space should be.
> >>
> >> Neither I nor any other extension developers are "enforcing" the code of
> >> conduct - that's up to a committee to do.
> >>
> >> > You stated that as far as you're concerned, there are interactions you
> >> > purposefully don't see as being governed by the CoC.
> >>
> >> I don't know what "purposefully" means there. There are interactions
> that
> >> are not governed by the CoC - how's that?
> >>
> >> > Some developers decide that they purposefully, in their repos, assume
> it
> >> > governs all interactions related to to work on the repo, and some,
> >> > apparently, do not.
> >>
> >> If anyone is "deciding" that, they're making an incorrect decision.
> >> Meaning, you can certainly say that you will not tolerate harassment,
> >> discrimination, etc. in personal emails as specified by the Wikimedia
> Code
> >> of Conduct - but as far as enforcement, you're on your own, unlike with
> >> the
> >> real CoC.
> >>
> >> Also, given that every extension had this file added in, how is a
> >> potential
> >> contributor to know who "decided" to embrace this file's statement and
> who
> >> didn't? Given the threat of harassment, it seems awfully risky to assume
> >> that everyone who didn't delete the file supports it.
> >>
> >> -Yaron
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Yaron Koren <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Moriel Schottlender <mschottlender at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> > > This isn't a personal attack, it's a consequence to your earlier
> >> email.
> >> > >
> >> > > You stated yourself, that one of the reasons you don't think a
> COC.md
> >> > file
> >> > >  should exist in your repository is because not all interactions are
> >> > covered
> >> > >  by it. While that might be true technically-speaking, it does make
> a
> >> > >  statement to potential contributors about what they might expect in
> >> > terms
> >> > >  of feeling safe and secure with a CoC in place.
> >> > >
> >> > >  For those of us who "bad interaction online" are a norm rather than
> >> an
> >> > edge
> >> > >  case, a statement that the CoC is not fully covering a space means
> we
> >> > don't
> >> > >  go to that space if we can help it.
> >> > >
> >> > >  Saying that one does not intend on touching a space where the
> >> > maintainer
> >> > >  clearly stated the CoC is only partially in effect is not a
> personal
> >> > attack
> >> > >  -- it's a consequence of what you said.
> >> > >  A consequence that is also shared by others who may feel less
> >> > comfortable
> >> > >  speaking up on public threads, but would avoid going into such
> spaces
> >> > all
> >> > >  the same. Not because of who you are personally, but because of
> what
> >> > your
> >> > >  statement about how your space is governed means.
> >> > >
> >> > >  Whatever other claims and discussion is going on in this and the
> >> other
> >> > >  thread, let's not try to make it sound like there's a personal
> attack
> >> > going
> >> > >  on here.
> >> >
> >> > No, I still think it's a personal attack. I think we've already
> >> > established that the CoC does not cover all interactions, and that the
> >> > CoC.md file is thus giving false information. Some people have stated
> >> that
> >> > clearly, some have grudgingly admitted it, but no one has really
> argued
> >> > against it. Even you note that it's "technically" true, whatever
> exactly
> >> > that means.
> >> >
> >> > And of course, this file was put in place by a few developers - it
> >> wasn't
> >> > an opt-in choice. (It's still not 100% clear that it's even an
> "opt-out"
> >> > choice, though at this point it seems to be.)
> >> >
> >> > Given those two things, the presence of a CoC.md file in an extension
> >> > directory tells a potential contributor nothing - nothing about
> >> additional
> >> > security they're getting, and nothing really about the extension's
> >> > developers. Actually, it's worse than nothing, because it gives
> >> potential
> >> > contributors false comfort as far as the protections they'll have. If,
> >> as
> >> > you say, some people face a real danger of harassment everywhere not
> >> > covered by a code of conduct, then it's all the more reason to either
> >> > remove that file, or reword it, everywhere - so people know what
> they're
> >> > actually getting into.
> >> >
> >> > So, why should Amir want to avoid dealing with my code specifically?
> Is
> >> it
> >> > because he would have fewer protections? Clearly, no. It must be
> >> something
> >> > about me personally that would make him treat my code differently from
> >> > everyone else's.
> >> >
> >> > -Yaron
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 179, Issue 27
> *******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l