Dear James, 2015-10-22 15:08 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>om>: Count me annoyed as well. Actual issues or not, I see nothing that could even remotely justify the language and the tone of your message. Best regards, -- Jérémie

On 22 October 2015 at 15:08, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: No one is doubting that your sentiments are sincere. We (myself included) reject the tone of your sentiments (not their sincerity) as being harmful to your argument being accepted by others. What I (and presumably others) do doubt, is whether the issues that you continually raise here are directly to us in the first place. Note, I'm not saying they're not important issues for society - but for this specific community to be doing something about. I think, in short, you've got the wrong mailing list. Perhaps you should join the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/ and discuss the issues that you're interested in on their mailing list.

Twitter already has a feature whereby you can follow all the tweets of a specific account. It's called 'following', and it's a core feature of Twitter. Even better - Just go to a user's profile page, click the little 'settings' icon and press "turn on notifications". That way, someone doesn't need to duplicate their work and use this mailing list to privide a 'summary' of the tweets hey just sent - Twitter can inform you of the whole tweet, immediately and directly. On Thursday, 22 October 2015, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

Here is an example of an organization which is encouraging their community to oppose CISA's requirement to share essentially all user personal and tracking information in real time with government: http://www.decidethefuture.org/ I know we are are all on the same team, but when the Public Policy department won't even say whether they intend to align their efforts in to issues by the extent to which they affect the community, it is very easy to become cynical and jaded. Questions go unanswered. Drawing conclusions about motivations behind the inability or unwillingness to address them is annoying, but the underlying abuses and overreach are far more annoying. It annoys me to see what could be a powerhouse for defending the community from threats to the mission has apparently decided that a Twitter campaign is the best they can do. I hope I am wrong, but where is the evidence that more is being done? On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote: Public Policy advocacy is not one of the objectives that the Foundation has chosen to measure with key performance indicator(s)? I would like to know why. I thought that was good, but does filing one action with the judicial branch mean that the Foundation is no longer involved in the level of legislative advocacy which has historically been necessary to keep the community from losses to government abuse? The lawsuit will probably take many years. Meanwhile moral panic-wielding jingoists are likely to continue to try to push the same bills we've been fighting for years. We know that the same dangerous bills are going to come up again and again. Will the Foundation stop fighting them just because the community has grown weary of talking about them?