Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

SUL pilot and renaming issues

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

nawrich at gmail

May 18, 2008, 4:18 PM

Post #1 of 13 (1557 views)
Permalink

SUL pilot and renaming issues

I'm not a subscriber to Wikitech-l, and I should probably ask there, but how
has the pilot of SUL been proceeding? I just happened to be drawn to this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkoneko#User:Serein.40enwiki and
it made me curious as to whether similar issues have occurred elsewhere.
Globalisation of features and
policies inevitably leads to conflicts between meta and local policies and
initiative, how and by whom are these types of conflicts being handled in
relation to SUL?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 18, 2008, 7:54 PM

Post #2 of 13 (1498 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Hoi,
Actually the discussion about POLICIES and the differences between conflicts
between global vs local policies is best done at this list and not
wikitech-l.

There is a sufficiently large group of people who are of the opinion that
there is a need to have a platform to discuss these things and come to a
resolution. At this moment any community can throw spanners in the works.
Single User Login is to be used on all projects for all users. The notion
that one project would be against this is anathema to getting this sorely
needed project implemented on all projects.

I have read what has been referred to and the only thing I find is that a
steward cannot do this thing because there are bureaucrats on the
en.wikipedia. Jeez, what are we talking about? This seems to me a
straightforward situation where the bringing together of all users is a
foregone conclusion. The only argument is a formality ???

Really,
GerardM

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Nathan <nawrich[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not a subscriber to Wikitech-l, and I should probably ask there, but
> how
> has the pilot of SUL been proceeding? I just happened to be drawn to this:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkoneko#User:Serein.40enwikiand
> it made me curious as to whether similar issues have occurred elsewhere.
> Globalisation of features and
> policies inevitably leads to conflicts between meta and local policies and
> initiative, how and by whom are these types of conflicts being handled in
> relation to SUL?
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

May 18, 2008, 8:51 PM

Post #3 of 13 (1506 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Actually the discussion about POLICIES and the differences between
> conflicts
> between global vs local policies is best done at this list and not
> wikitech-l.
>
> There is a sufficiently large group of people who are of the opinion that
> there is a need to have a platform to discuss these things and come to a
> resolution. At this moment any community can throw spanners in the works.
> Single User Login is to be used on all projects for all users. The notion
> that one project would be against this is anathema to getting this sorely
> needed project implemented on all projects.
>
> I have read what has been referred to and the only thing I find is that a
> steward cannot do this thing because there are bureaucrats on the
> en.wikipedia. Jeez, what are we talking about? This seems to me a
> straightforward situation where the bringing together of all users is a
> foregone conclusion. The only argument is a formality ???
>

Currently, the Meta usurpation rule says that local projects decide when
usurpation is appropriate.

Given that, it is expected that Stewards (who will in general be less
familiar with the policies on individual projects) should defer to local
Bureaucrats when they are available. Darkoneko acted outside of that and
executed a usurpation that violated enwiki policy. For which Darkoneko has
apologized.

I don't think the specifics of Darkoneko's actions are very important, but
the general principle are.

Should Usurpation policy be dictated by individual wikis? And if not, what
should a global usurpation policy look like?

In the case at hand, the enwiki account that was usurped had ~6000 edits,
but hadn't edited in over a year. Even if there was a global usurpation
policy, I'm not sure I would want us to go around usurping accounts with
that had thousands of edits since it strikes at the heart of the user's
expectation of attribution under the GFDL. Currently enwiki policy says
that an account can only be usurped if it has no substantive edit history,
out of concern for the GFDL.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 18, 2008, 9:06 PM

Post #4 of 13 (1494 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Hoi,
The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that the one
with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user can be
found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving precedence
to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people in
this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their number of
edits, you may find really high numbers.

I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by individual
projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently things
would break down.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Actually the discussion about POLICIES and the differences between
> > conflicts
> > between global vs local policies is best done at this list and not
> > wikitech-l.
> >
> > There is a sufficiently large group of people who are of the opinion that
> > there is a need to have a platform to discuss these things and come to a
> > resolution. At this moment any community can throw spanners in the works.
> > Single User Login is to be used on all projects for all users. The notion
> > that one project would be against this is anathema to getting this sorely
> > needed project implemented on all projects.
> >
> > I have read what has been referred to and the only thing I find is that a
> > steward cannot do this thing because there are bureaucrats on the
> > en.wikipedia. Jeez, what are we talking about? This seems to me a
> > straightforward situation where the bringing together of all users is a
> > foregone conclusion. The only argument is a formality ???
> >
>
> Currently, the Meta usurpation rule says that local projects decide when
> usurpation is appropriate.
>
> Given that, it is expected that Stewards (who will in general be less
> familiar with the policies on individual projects) should defer to local
> Bureaucrats when they are available. Darkoneko acted outside of that and
> executed a usurpation that violated enwiki policy. For which Darkoneko has
> apologized.
>
> I don't think the specifics of Darkoneko's actions are very important, but
> the general principle are.
>
> Should Usurpation policy be dictated by individual wikis? And if not, what
> should a global usurpation policy look like?
>
> In the case at hand, the enwiki account that was usurped had ~6000 edits,
> but hadn't edited in over a year. Even if there was a global usurpation
> policy, I'm not sure I would want us to go around usurping accounts with
> that had thousands of edits since it strikes at the heart of the user's
> expectation of attribution under the GFDL. Currently enwiki policy says
> that an account can only be usurped if it has no substantive edit history,
> out of concern for the GFDL.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

May 18, 2008, 9:16 PM

Post #5 of 13 (1497 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that the one
> with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user can be
> found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving
> precedence
> to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people in
> this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their number
> of
> edits, you may find really high numbers.
>
> I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by individual
> projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently things
> would break down.
> Thanks,
> GerardM

The principle behind enwiki's policy is still reasonable though.

Attribution is a fundemental legal expectation under the GFDL. We attribute
edits under our self-chosen psuedonyms. I'm not convinced that
involuntarily renaming accounts that have an established edit history is
either ethical or legal.

I know the SUL proposal has been to give the account to the most established
user, but it's not clear to me that doing so is appropriate. An unfortunate
consequence of that is that some popular names might never be unified, but
personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way to be fair to some
existing users may well be to frustrate others.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 18, 2008, 9:26 PM

Post #6 of 13 (1495 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Hoi,
This discussion was finished a long time ago. We are passed the point where
objections on principle are even reasonable.

As I indicated earlier, a single project cannot and should not stand in the
way of the implementation of global policies. This was discussed ad nauseam.
Even when a local policy is "reasonable", it does not make it reasonable in
the larger scale of things. There is no reason why the attribution is to be
linked by the self chosen user name, the only thing relevant is that it is
correctly attributed to the user involved. This argument is problematic
anywaw as people can request a name change and in that case attribution
changes as well.

Indeed it can be frustrating for some and it will be frustrating to some.
This was understood from the start.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that the
> one
> > with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user can
> be
> > found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving
> > precedence
> > to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people in
> > this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their number
> > of
> > edits, you may find really high numbers.
> >
> > I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by
> individual
> > projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently things
> > would break down.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
>
>
>
> The principle behind enwiki's policy is still reasonable though.
>
> Attribution is a fundemental legal expectation under the GFDL. We
> attribute
> edits under our self-chosen psuedonyms. I'm not convinced that
> involuntarily renaming accounts that have an established edit history is
> either ethical or legal.
>
> I know the SUL proposal has been to give the account to the most
> established
> user, but it's not clear to me that doing so is appropriate. An
> unfortunate
> consequence of that is that some popular names might never be unified, but
> personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way to be fair to some
> existing users may well be to frustrate others.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

May 18, 2008, 9:49 PM

Post #7 of 13 (1502 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

The discussion you think is finished resulted in a policy on Meta that
defers to local communities and at least one community that adopted a
standard of zero edits.

I would say that is prima facie evidence that the discussion was not
finished the way you think.

-Robert Rohde

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> This discussion was finished a long time ago. We are passed the point where
> objections on principle are even reasonable.
>
> As I indicated earlier, a single project cannot and should not stand in the
> way of the implementation of global policies. This was discussed ad
> nauseam.
> Even when a local policy is "reasonable", it does not make it reasonable in
> the larger scale of things. There is no reason why the attribution is to be
> linked by the self chosen user name, the only thing relevant is that it is
> correctly attributed to the user involved. This argument is problematic
> anywaw as people can request a name change and in that case attribution
> changes as well.
>
> Indeed it can be frustrating for some and it will be frustrating to some.
> This was understood from the start.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that the
> > one
> > > with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user can
> > be
> > > found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving
> > > precedence
> > > to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people
> in
> > > this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their
> number
> > > of
> > > edits, you may find really high numbers.
> > >
> > > I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by
> > individual
> > > projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently things
> > > would break down.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > The principle behind enwiki's policy is still reasonable though.
> >
> > Attribution is a fundemental legal expectation under the GFDL. We
> > attribute
> > edits under our self-chosen psuedonyms. I'm not convinced that
> > involuntarily renaming accounts that have an established edit history is
> > either ethical or legal.
> >
> > I know the SUL proposal has been to give the account to the most
> > established
> > user, but it's not clear to me that doing so is appropriate. An
> > unfortunate
> > consequence of that is that some popular names might never be unified,
> but
> > personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way to be fair to some
> > existing users may well be to frustrate others.
> >
> > -Robert Rohde
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

May 18, 2008, 10:45 PM

Post #8 of 13 (1501 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Hoi,
When it comes to establishing consensus or policy, there is the Foundation
mailing list, the Meta, MediaWiki and Wikimediafoundation wikis and then
there are the mailing lists and wikis not open to the general public ......
Any of these can claim to reach or make consensus, in the end none of them
really do.

This is one of those issues that would be a good subject for a council to
deal with... It is just one of the issues that prove the need for such a
body.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> The discussion you think is finished resulted in a policy on Meta that
> defers to local communities and at least one community that adopted a
> standard of zero edits.
>
> I would say that is prima facie evidence that the discussion was not
> finished the way you think.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > This discussion was finished a long time ago. We are passed the point
> where
> > objections on principle are even reasonable.
> >
> > As I indicated earlier, a single project cannot and should not stand in
> the
> > way of the implementation of global policies. This was discussed ad
> > nauseam.
> > Even when a local policy is "reasonable", it does not make it reasonable
> in
> > the larger scale of things. There is no reason why the attribution is to
> be
> > linked by the self chosen user name, the only thing relevant is that it
> is
> > correctly attributed to the user involved. This argument is problematic
> > anywaw as people can request a name change and in that case attribution
> > changes as well.
> >
> > Indeed it can be frustrating for some and it will be frustrating to some.
> > This was understood from the start.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that
> the
> > > one
> > > > with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user
> can
> > > be
> > > > found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving
> > > > precedence
> > > > to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people
> > in
> > > > this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > edits, you may find really high numbers.
> > > >
> > > > I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by
> > > individual
> > > > projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently
> things
> > > > would break down.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The principle behind enwiki's policy is still reasonable though.
> > >
> > > Attribution is a fundemental legal expectation under the GFDL. We
> > > attribute
> > > edits under our self-chosen psuedonyms. I'm not convinced that
> > > involuntarily renaming accounts that have an established edit history
> is
> > > either ethical or legal.
> > >
> > > I know the SUL proposal has been to give the account to the most
> > > established
> > > user, but it's not clear to me that doing so is appropriate. An
> > > unfortunate
> > > consequence of that is that some popular names might never be unified,
> > but
> > > personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way to be fair to some
> > > existing users may well be to frustrate others.
> > >
> > > -Robert Rohde
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

waerth at asianet

May 19, 2008, 1:27 AM

Post #9 of 13 (1502 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Ok a littlebit offtopic to this I know, but.

When can simple wikimedians like myself sign up for SUL. I have many
little Waerth-accounts over many many projects (40-50 I estimate) and it
would be nice to reunite them all. I think I only confirmed the nl, de
and en ones though ....

Waerth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

rarohde at gmail

May 19, 2008, 3:20 AM

Post #10 of 13 (1491 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Out of curiousity, I went on a Google Translate assisted tour of Usurpation
policies.

DE, PL, and IT wikis appear to be modeled on EN, and prohibit usurpation if
the target account has any meaningful edit history.

AR and ZH wikis apparently allow usurpation of any inactive account that has
failed to respond after a 7 day notice period.

FR wiki was a vaguely defined rule allowing usurpation of accounts with only
a few or old contributions.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, none of these appear to allow a foreigner to take
over an actively used account name on the local wiki.

-Robert Rohde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

tstarling at wikimedia

May 19, 2008, 5:03 AM

Post #11 of 13 (1484 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Nathan wrote:
> I'm not a subscriber to Wikitech-l, and I should probably ask there, but how
> has the pilot of SUL been proceeding? I just happened to be drawn to this:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkoneko#User:Serein.40enwiki and
> it made me curious as to whether similar issues have occurred elsewhere.
> Globalisation of features and
> policies inevitably leads to conflicts between meta and local policies and
> initiative, how and by whom are these types of conflicts being handled in
> relation to SUL?

The pilot is coming along just fine. The stewards, as usual, will have to
interpret community consensus and decide on a policy amongst themselves.
The tech team certainly won't wait for them to do this before we enable
the feature.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cbrown1023.ml at gmail

May 20, 2008, 4:05 PM

Post #12 of 13 (1467 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Waerth <waerth[at]asianet.co.th> wrote:
> Ok a littlebit offtopic to this I know, but.
>
> When can simple wikimedians like myself sign up for SUL. I have many
> little Waerth-accounts over many many projects (40-50 I estimate) and it
> would be nice to reunite them all. I think I only confirmed the nl, de
> and en ones though ....
>
> Waerth
>

I didn't see anyone respond to this yet... we are currently just going
through the pilot of SUL (ie. it's only enabled for admins). If all
goes well, the developers will open it up to regular users after they
review the results of the pilot. So, unfortunately, you can't sign up
for SUL yet unless you are an admin on a Wikimedia project (and no,
for any of you out there who are thinking it, you *can't* get
temp-sysoped on testwiki to unify you accounts :P).

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

node.ue at gmail

May 20, 2008, 8:30 PM

Post #13 of 13 (1467 views)
Permalink

Re: SUL pilot and renaming issues [In reply to]

Let me remind you all that that is an admin on ANY project - I was
disappointed to not be allowed to unify my accounts until I remembered
that there are a couple of small Wikipedias I am a sysop on. I unified
my accounts at nv.wp.

Mark

2008/5/20 Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml[at]gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Waerth <waerth[at]asianet.co.th> wrote:
>> Ok a littlebit offtopic to this I know, but.
>>
>> When can simple wikimedians like myself sign up for SUL. I have many
>> little Waerth-accounts over many many projects (40-50 I estimate) and it
>> would be nice to reunite them all. I think I only confirmed the nl, de
>> and en ones though ....
>>
>> Waerth
>>
>
> I didn't see anyone respond to this yet... we are currently just going
> through the pilot of SUL (ie. it's only enabled for admins). If all
> goes well, the developers will open it up to regular users after they
> review the results of the pilot. So, unfortunately, you can't sign up
> for SUL yet unless you are an admin on a Wikimedia project (and no,
> for any of you out there who are thinking it, you *can't* get
> temp-sysoped on testwiki to unify you accounts :P).
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com