[Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
99 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Lodewijk
Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
(the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
discuss...

Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>
> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
> being content-free.
>
> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
> bodies ;-)
>
> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>
> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>
> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>
> Ariel
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
> board
> > meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> > decided elsewhere.
> >
> > Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
> wheeling
> > a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
> Board
> > of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> > solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> > from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> > WMF in being transparent?
> >
> > Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> > could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> > minutes are positively Wildean.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Mike Peel
They were doing this regularly until January:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_meetings/2016-01-30
and see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_meetings
I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but hopefully only temporarily.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 17:11, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
> meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
> (the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
> indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
> discuss...
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
>> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
>> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>>
>> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
>> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
>> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
>> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
>> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
>> being content-free.
>>
>> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
>> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
>> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
>> bodies ;-)
>>
>> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
>> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
>> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
>> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
>> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>>
>> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
>> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>>
>> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
>> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>>
>> Ariel
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
>> board
>>> meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
>>> decided elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
>> wheeling
>>> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
>> Board
>>> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
>>> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
>>> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
>>> WMF in being transparent?
>>>
>>> Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
>>> could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
>>> minutes are positively Wildean.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
>>>> a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Sam Klein
In reply to this post by Ariel Glenn WMF
Ariel Glenn writes:
> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
happen

Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less
participants remember.  Online board votes can be closed with a week of
discussion and four days to vote:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations

If there is a dedicated scribe, rough minutes can be taken in a shared doc,
available during the meeting.  The fastest board I've been on spent 5
minutes at the end reviewing the draft minutes + any decisions made, and
shared the results right away.  This also helped reinforce any next steps
committed to.

If on the other hand draft minutes aren't available right away, you have to
whip people to look & respond (it helps for the whip to be a member of the
group, not the scribe, who might not want to press the point), and it's
easy for other events to intervene and lead to unexpected delays (since any
event can seem more urgent or important than this routine task).

SJ
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Jimmy Wales-5
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> WMF in being transparent?

One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
"Kremlinology".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology

The cycle looks like this:
- the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
interpret indirect clues
- this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
- board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
done, or believing things they don't believe
- leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
- leading to the board not sharing enough

I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.

Rather than point out negative examples, I do want to point out a
positive example, because I think that (see the sensitivity that the
hostility generates) some are likely to see what I'm about to say as
"Jimbo doesn't want people to be critical or to ask hard questions",
which would leave me with the emotion "what's the point of trying to
talk to them?"  Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.

Today I responded to a series of criticisms of the board by Mzmcbride.
His criticisms are largely wrong, I think.  But they weren't offered in
a spirit of conspiracy mongering, maliciousness, etc.  One central point
that he's making is one that I think actually stands, although he would
be more persuasive if he stuck to that rather than throwing in some
extras: it would be better if, at all times, the WMF and the Board had
solid succession planning in case of the loss of a key executive.

That's absolutely true.  That's is one of the things that led to this
whole situation - I have a lot more to say about that, but it'll have to
wait until I finish writing up a report for public consumption about the
time I spent in California talking to staff.

So this is a strong lesson learned and for me personally a top priority
going forward - making sure that the permanent ED search is conducted
professionally and with vigor, and making sure that as quickly as
possible we have strong hires in all the vacant C-level positions and
proper succession planning as a routine matter of organizational
governance and stability.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Pete Forsyth-2
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"


Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.

You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.

Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales-5
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
> "Kremlinology".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
>
> The cycle looks like this:
> - the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
> interpret indirect clues
> - this interpretation is too often deeply paranoid and hostile, and
> sometimes led by people with their own private agenda
> - board members feel attacked personally for doing things they haven't
> done, or believing things they don't believe
> - leading them to pull back from a hostile set of interactions
> - leading to the board not sharing enough
>


I think the paranoia and hostility comes in good part from the number of
times you say stuff – often very emphatically – that turns out not to be
supported by the facts. (Examples: [1].) And when that happens, I don't see
you fessing up and saying "sorry"; instead, you try to smear, undermine and
intimidate those who point the contradictions out.

Along with that come empty promises – sops to Cerberus – like the one
quoted here:[2]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

Nothing happened after you said that, as is so often the case. The grant
agreement was only published a month later, within hours of my calling John
Bracken at the Knight Foundation, on behalf of The Signpost, who confirmed
that the Knight Foundation welcomed transparency and had no objection
whatsoever to the grant agreement being published. Previously, we had been
told – by Lila – that publishing the grant agreement would "break donor
privacy required in maintaining sustainable donor relations".[3] (Bracken
told me that as soon as he advised the WMF of our communication, the WMF
released the grant agreement.)

Yet just a couple of hours before the release of that document, you still
told the community that it was a "total lie" that there had ever been a
search engine project, or that it was part of any grant.[4]

Your behaviour comes across as completely self-serving. The overall
impression is one of complete disdain and disrespect for the community.
It's as though the community is just a means to an end to you.

There's no basis for trust. And there won't be, until you own up to and
apologise for that stuff, instead of complaining that people are
"attacking" you.

Andreas

[1] Examples:

A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report#cite_note-3


Quote: “To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general “searching” or to try to “be
google”. It’s an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It’s a total
lie.”

Compare that to the Knowledge Engine grant agreement at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Knowledge_engine_grant_agreement.pdf

B. http://archive.is/hFMNV#selection-10409.0-10413.73

Quote: "In all these occasions - all of them - I publicly and privately
condemned the human rights abuses of these regimes. Writegeist is spreading
lies about me, and should be permanently blocked."

Compare that to the Wikimania speech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q&t=39m0s

C. http://archive.is/M56Wm#selection-345.0-357.95

Quote: "I just wanted to comment here on the idea that Larry Sanger had the
idea for Wikipedia. This is not correct."

Compare that to http://archive.is/kDwzh#selection-95.104-95.331
three-and-a-half years earlier:

Quote: "After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use
Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and
me!) ..."

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed
– diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=698861097

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant

[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=704421946



> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l" - there are good people and
> good conversations on here, but there are also people who are behaving
> in ways that no one would tolerate in person or even on the wiki.
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
>> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
>
>
> Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
> there are much more effective things you can do. Your analysis and
> commentary about the general dynamics are not, in my view, helpful (whether
> or not they are accurate), because things that you, specifically and
> repeatedly, have been asked to do to reduce drama have gone ignored.
>
> You're on the record having dismissed a community-elected trustee's words
> as "utter fucking bullshit." You recently doubled down on that statement in
> an email to me and James. That's just one dimension of a huge collection of
> issues. Many people have asked you to deal with the damage you have caused
> recently and publicly, but none of the responses I have seen suggest that
> you understand your own contribution to some pretty serious problems.
>
> Telling the list what you think the general dynamics are, while you are
> apparently oblivious to your contribution to them, is not helpful.

Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
release an email?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

SarahSV
​​
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>

​Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
James and cc-ed to Pete.

James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]

Sarah

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> release an email?
>>
>
> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>
> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>
> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
priority.  It has gone on too long.
If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
was redacted.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >> release an email?
> >
> > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> >
> > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> >
> > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.




As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
here.[2]

There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
in this movement for long enough.

Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
early January,[3]

Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."

The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
Wikimedian" should assume the best.

Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
published were the board and/or ED.

To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
Can we please put an end to it?

If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
gone on long enough.

Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]

Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=698861097
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Fæ
On 16 March 2016 at 12:17, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
...

There is no excuse for a $100m/year Foundation to endorse a trustee
who behaves so badly in public, and even worse in private. Nonsense
puffery about "free speech", does not suddenly make it acceptable for
Jimmy to gratuitously drop the f-bomb when brutally slagging off a
past board member in writing. This, hand-in-hand with political
distortions and what now appears a long history of blatant "untruths",
makes Jimmy Wales completely inappropriate to remain a WMF trustee for
the next 3 months, let alone the next 3 years.

Jimmy has a great career as a pundit, and many similar media
celebrities seem to be able to grow their profile and fees by behaving
badly and trashing people they have chosen to dislike. Good luck to
him, but let's stop promoting the myth that he in any way officially
speaks for the Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia volunteers or (in his
self-appointed role) Wikimedia employees.

P.S. Does anyone who reads this list know /exactly/ when and where
will we see the results of Jimmy Wales' interviews/workshops with WMF
employees, after his recent trip to S.F. acting as the default organ
of the WMF board of trustees; or should this now be forgotten like it
never happened?

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Hoi,
May I ask on what basis this should be done. Is it not equally relevant to
ask yourself how isolated you are in your position? Is this what we need,
will it do us any good or is it just that you feel that this is what "we"
need ?

It is fine for you to spout what you do. However, I am very much disgusted
with this constant sniping. It is not about what we do and it makes things
worse. I can totally echo you when I say that it has gone long enough.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 16 March 2016 at 13:17, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> > >> release an email?
> > >
> > > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> > > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
> > >
> > > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
> > > James and cc-ed to Pete.
> > >
> > > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
> > >
> > > Sarah
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
> >
> > Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> > priority.  It has gone on too long.
> > If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> > other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> > was redacted.
>
>
>
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.
>
> Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
> or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
> justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
> into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
> sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
> We saw this in action when Jimmy said about the Knight Foundation grant, in
> early January,[3]
>
> Quote: "I'll have to talk to others to make sure there are no contractual
> reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant letter should be
> published on meta. The Knight Grant is a red herring here, so it would be
> best to clear the air around that completely as soon as possible."
>
> The excuse, having "to talk to others" first (the same excuse as was used
> above), sounded plausible. The community is conditioned to "assume good
> faith", making non-transparency a viable strategy: after all, a "good
> Wikimedian" should assume the best.
>
> Yet today we know that there *were* no contractual reasons to keep this
> information private. The Knight Foundation was all in favour of full
> transparency. The only ones who *didn't* want this information to be
> published were the board and/or ED.
>
> To my mind, this sort of communication strategy is toxic and manipulative.
> Can we please put an end to it?
>
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
>
> Having a WMF transparency officer tasked with tracking and resolving
> queries would help as well, as recently discussed in another thread.[4]
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083190.html
> [2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=710334640#What_James_said_publicly
> [3]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=698861097
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparency/Practices#Transparency_officer
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Jimmy Wales-5
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
promising any sooner.

On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>> release an email?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>
>> There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>> James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>
>> James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>> [2]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>
> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
> priority.  It has gone on too long.
> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
> was redacted.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Fæ
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.

Can anyone share a link to it?

Thanks,
Fae

On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> promising any sooner.
>
> On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>>> release an email?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]

--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Lodewijk
Let me rephrase that for you:

Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
Were you successful in getting clarity?

If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
tempted to interact.

Lodewijk

Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <[hidden email]> het volgende
geschreven:

> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
>
> Can anyone share a link to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> > promising any sooner.
> >
> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >>>> release an email?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>
> --
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Fæ
Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales'
behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.

Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as:
"Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
....
If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
gone on long enough."

Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted
this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.

It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however
when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken
on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the
issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this
gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments
from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.

Fae


On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let me rephrase that for you:
>
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?
>
> If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
> argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
> tempted to interact.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <[hidden email]> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
>> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
>>
>> Can anyone share a link to it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
>> > promising any sooner.
>> >
>> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> >>>> release an email?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>
>> --
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Lodewijk
It is good that you keep such track of the commitment. It would be nice if
that were done in a more constructive fashion.

You will often find me on your side when asking for more transparency. I do
think that doing this in a more constructive way will be much more
effective in the long run.

Lodewijk

Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <[hidden email]> het volgende
geschreven:

> Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales'
> behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
>
> Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as:
> "Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has
> consciously
> or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are
> justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked
> into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that
> sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets.
> ....
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough."
>
> Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted
> this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass.
>
> It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however
> when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken
> on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the
> issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this
> gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments
> from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees.
>
> Fae
>
>
> On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Let me rephrase that for you:
> >
> > Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> > Were you successful in getting clarity?
> >
> > If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
> > argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
> > tempted to interact.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> het
> volgende
> > geschreven:
> >
> >> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
> >> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
> >>
> >> Can anyone share a link to it?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > I think all will be clear by Monday.  Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> >> > promising any sooner.
> >> >
> >> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >> >>>> release an email?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others
> about
> >> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.
> [1]
> >>
> >> --
> >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> --
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Jimmy Wales-5
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
On 3/22/16 6:18 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?

Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish
something that will then allow me to publish further.  But I did publish
something on my user talk page that is relevant.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Andy Mabbett-2
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.

Diff, please.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Lodewijk
Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?

Lodewijk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345