Jump to content

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Info The election ended 11 June 2017. No more votes will be accepted.
The results were announced on 19 June 2017. Please consider submitting any feedback regarding the 2017 election on the election's post mortem page.



Dear Election Committee, the message you posted on the de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Kurier (see [1]) is, to say the least, very bad service.

First: Why not give a professional translation at least into big languages like French, German, Spanish?
Second: Why don't you write a short readable text with the most important information (what is the Board? who is now a member? who is to be elected? what happens now?), rather than a huge battery of irrelevant things and impressive links?
Third: Why don't you add one link at the bottom to one page where all relevant details can be found if needed?
Fourth: Why don't you ask whether this information is sufficiently clear for the community, whether there is criticism concerning the announcement, the election itself, and so on? Why don't you encourage us to ask questions and give comments?
Fifth: Why do you not indicate a person/account who is responsible for communication, who receives questions and criticisms and possibly answers them?

All this is not something extraordinary. It is usual business (albeit, unfortunately, not in the Wikimedia environment but in virtually all other environments). The result of this approach is that your message is understood as indication of "Respektlosigkeit, Überheblichkeit, Großkotzigkeit, Weltmachtsallüren, Großmannssucht", meaning, in English, disrespect, arrogance, snootiness, airs and graces of a world power, craving for status, and so on. Justly so, I do think.--Mautpreller (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Who exactly here are craving for status? Otherwise is a pretty standard announcement. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Professional translation is costly to the Foundation, and does not always fit well within the wiki-world since translators can miss wiki-specific language and meaning. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Ruslik: You are right, this is a "standard announcement" as I know it from Wikimedia institutions, and that's exactly the problem. "Craving for status" is not a good translation, "Großmannssucht" literally means "wanting to appear as a great person". I cannot see any effort to really address the communities and to care about their questions and problems, rather you could compare this kind of announcement to a message by an executive board to its employees (who have to take it as it comes). I suggested some relatively simple ways how this could be improved. What about them?--Mautpreller (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Ajraddatz: I should think that "costly" is not such a huge problem in view of the fact that the "Strategy Process" alone will cost 2.5 millions. The problem of "specific language and meaning" is not a wikimedia-specific problem but always present, in any case of translation. It usually means that you have to review the translation but nothing else. Don't you see that simply dumping a uniform standard text everywhere is frequently not experienced as respectful? And that it is not very conducive to the idea of involving the communities? --Mautpreller (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Professional translations can be done voluntarily too and I doubt there's a lack of ppl capable of that on de-wp. Just dumping some text in English is probably the worst way to get users interested in the process. Braveheart (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@JSutherland (WMF):, @KTC: - just in case you're not aware of this. I'm sure it is possible to role out announcements and site notices in a more professional manner, with the help of local volunteers (like me, or Mautpraller :-p ). Braveheart (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Mautpreller: You're right, pre-translating some of this would have been better. While cost is always a concern, sometimes a large one since different buckets are not always available, I've worked with Finance to find some money to help pay the community contractors we already have for the strategic process to translate going forward. I think this will help a lot going forward as well as the huge support of the volunteer translators. We'll be sending out a letter to the translators mailing list with the expected schedule shortly and be aiming to get requests for translations out as far ahead of time as possible for larger notifications. @Braveheart: as well, sorry edit conflict :). Jalexander--WMF 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Mautpreller and Braveheart: As James said, you are right that pre-translating would be better. Based on a number of conversations with members of the community over the past couple of months, we are working towards improving our efforts to get messages translated before we send them out via MassMessage. Specifically by trying whenever we can to send a request to the translators list at least a couple days before we send something out. These changes are relatively new, and will take some time to work out all the kinks. However, as was the case here, the schedule for the message vs. when the message is finished does not always allow for this process to happen.
Thank you for the offer of help, as we will absolutely need some! Joining the translators mailing list is a great way, and helping with translations is another. For example, the message in question still has not (as of this posting) been translated by anyone into German. Communicating across languages is something that many of us, certainly myself included, have been interested in and made efforts to support for several years. I think a lot of progress has been made, but we are not there yet. I appreciate the persistence and nudging, but also want to remind folks to assume good faith. This is about managing limitations, and not an intentional desire to exclude people. :) --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@GVarnum-WMF: My opinion (as a long-time Wikipedian, mainly active in German-language Wikipedia, and member of Wikimedia Switzerland): The Wikimedia Foundation obviously has a lot of money to spend. Donation campaigns in the last years were very successful, and much of the money is spent for various projects that aren't directly connected to "keeping Wikipedia running", as the campaigns usually suggest. Most people are donating money expecting to help Wikipedia. The encyclopedia they're using and they're donating for, however, wasn't created by the WMF. It was created by us, the community of encyclopedia writers (and photographers). The WMF as the non-commercial supporting organization therefore should spend the donations in a way that is most benificial to the community. One of the things that would be helpful would be to pay professional translators for translating WMF announcements to the community in at least the major Wikipedia languages. It's the least we could expect. It's certainly not the volunteers' duty to use their valuable time for translating WMF announcements directed towards them; dumping some English text into e.g. German-language Wikipedia, basically saying "here's what we have to tell you, it's not in your language, please translate it yourself!" appears, also in my opinion, quite disrespectful towards the communities, even if no disrespect is actually intended. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are not really bickering about some wee bucks for translators, while you take millions after millions in donations? This would be at least about the core of the very existence of the WMF: communicating with those, who should be the real bosses, the communities. The WMF is just a service organisation for the communities, so the millions of dollars should be spent for those communities. Just ditch one useless pet project like Flow, and you'll get tons of dollars free for useful stuff like this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Gestumblindi and Sänger: I can appreciate what you are both saying. However, please keep in mind that there are many conflicting opinions on this. When we have used professional translators, such as in the 2015 election, we got comments from volunteer translators telling us that it was a waste of money and they would rather that money go toward other things. There are also some translators that have said they would find what you are suggesting to be very insulting to their work. So we have to try and balance both perspectives, and also manage the budget responsibly. If we funded every idea that we hear from the community "because you raise millions in donations" we would in reality need to be raising billions, and if we defunded every idea someone suggested we defund, all the wikis and activities would be closed by end of week. The fact is the money is not endless, and as a nonprofit, we have to spend it as effectively as we can. We have and will likely again use professional translators to help in major events like the elections. But again, I do appreciate what you are both saying, and if you would like, you are absolutely welcome to discuss those budget ideas with the broader community. We are conducting the annual plan review right now. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The message on deWP was posted on 7.4.17, if you look here, that page with the message was just one day old, who should have translated it? Same for this page or this one. If you are in such a haste, you need to get paid translators, if you want to use the normal volunteer translators, you need to give them enough time. One day for volunteer translators is just a slap in the face for them, a wilful disregard of their services. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: I appreciate your point about paid translators, as I have said. You are absolutely welcome to bring this up in a more long-term strategic place, as I have already suggested. I am not clear on what you are asking for at this point. While I appreciate what you are saying and apologize that you displeased about what happened, you are making the same basic point multiple times (you would like us to consider more use of paid translators) - and I feel like you are hoping something will happen, I am just not clear what. If you are hoping I will promise here and now that we will include a large line item for translators in next year's budget, again, this isn't the correct place for that discussion. If you are hoping we will use translators this election, you have already been told that we plan to. Is there something specific you would like regarding this discussion on messages sent for the elections? --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Point I'm trying to make is this:
Posting such Messages on one of the bigger non-english project pages in english is considered by the non-english communities as at least thoughtless, at worst hostile. It's an absolute must for the WMF to do such postings in the proper language, and they have more then enough resources to guarantee this. Either by using voluntary translators (that requires enough time for the translators, they do it voluntary, not on command) or by using paid translators (should only be chosen, if there are short time restrictions, i.e. bad planning).
This time you just fucked up. Should I even try to translate the message after the fact? The damage is done, and it won't be sent again, or will it?
My last post was just to make clear, that under the circumstances with the current message any relying on voluntary translators was just living in cloud cuckoo land, with a deadline of one day you should have used paid translators, or community liaisons, or staffers with the right languages (You have a diverse language staff, that could do it, right?). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Okay - thank you for bringing these points up and for your input. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@GVarnum-WMF: I basically agree with Sänger - I'm not opposed to using volunteer translators for messages of the WMF to the community, if there are volunteers willing to translate these. Personally, I wouldn't volunteer for that job (maybe for some improvements), as I think that volunteers should spend their time rather for the encyclopedia / other projects (Commons etc.) and the WMF should be perfectly able to pay professional translators... but yes, if other volunteers see it differently, I certainly don't want to interfere. But the main issue is that messages from the WMF to the community should be posted in the communities' languages, regardless of the means (paid translators, volunteers) used to achieve this goal. This should be a matter of course. It's clear that this can't be done for all languages of Wikipedia, as there are countless projects in (very) small languages und with small communities, but it should be possible at least for the major languages, such as French, German, Russian, or Spanish. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Gestumblindi: I think we are all in agreement that these messages should, whenever possible, be sent in native languages. I am not personally aware of anyone that holds a counter opinion to that belief. As I posted before, we are working on evolving our plans to make that possible more often moving forward. However, as I said before, that just isn't always possible because of unintentional and unavoidable events along the way - as was the case here. There are hundreds of volunteers translating messages across the projects every day - so the perks of a movement this large is something you may not enjoy doing may turn out to be someone else's passion project. I am also not aware of a volunteer role (even writing and editing) within Wikimedia that someone has not argued passionately we should make a paid role within the Foundation. ;) Also, the "major languages" definition is itself a very sensitive topic for some. I have had others passionately argue that anything short of about ten languages is not even worth dedicating donor dollars to and an insult to the other languages (Dutch for example). Those are also all "European languages", so that will upset people advocating for more focus on "non-European languages" (Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese for example). So now we are close to ten languages, and our costs just doubled. ;) In general, we usually wind up settling on needing to translate 17-19 languages if we are indeed paying for it. I am not offering counter-arguments - just pointing out it becomes more complicated than it seems on the surface rather quickly. We get a lot of input - often conflicting - on topics like this, and we do our best to accommodate. I appreciate in regards to the concerns you have brought up, we did not as well this time as we should, and as I have said before, we recognize that and will continue to strive to do better next time. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would as well say: Use the ~20-30 biggest project languages (discount botpedias, just real communities), it's still just peanuts in comparison with the multi-millions you get back from the work of those volunteers. And with massages like this, about the very core of community representation, it's not just a should, whenever possible, but a definitive has to be. There is absolutely no excuse for such wilful neglect from the service organisation of the communities not to make even the slightest effort to get the messages translated. It was an affront, full stop. It was a clear sign of disregard, full stop. Don't you ever dare to do such deplorable stuff again! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sänger: Sorry - but I do have to push back on that. It is never wise to ever put absolutes like you are proposing on something like this, and that is why I did not do it. I agree we should always strive to do it, but it is not always possible. For example, plenty would argue that getting a message out in any language is better than getting it out after it is relevant - and sometimes we simply cannot prepare the message early enough. We certainly strive to have things ready early - but circumstances just do not always work in our favor. ;) I am sorry that is the case - it would certainly make my life easier if it was not the case, but that is the case and pretending like it is not will not get us very far. Also, I hope you appreciate the irony of asking others to be respectful and yourself doing it in a very disrespectful way. ;) I hope you do not think this to be disrespectful on my part, but as you have not offered anything new in several posts and have adopted a rather hostile tone, I plan to disengage from this thread unless something new is brought up. So if I do not reply again, just know it is because I did not feel it was a good use of time to go in circles on the same points and not because I do not value the point you have made several times. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@GVarnum-WMF: Myself, I'm for now content with your above message (15:16, 21 April 2017), and I certainly see the sensitiveness of the topics "small languages" and "non-European languages". No solution will satisfy everyone, I see that too. If you have a message for the entire community, it's not really satisfying to restrict translation to even the top twenty of Wikipedia's 295 language editions, as speakers of languages 21 to 295 can feel marginalized. E.g. according to this list, sorting by the number of articles and if we stop at 20, the Norwegians (20th place) would get a translation, the neighboring Finns, placed 22th, wouldn't. Not to mention that some of the "large" language versions, such as Cebuano, have in fact a rather small community and consist mainly of bot-generated articles. So we could sort by the number of active users instead, which is giving a more realistic picture, but the issue would remain basically the same. On the other hand, translating everything into 295 languages, no matter how small they are, doesn't seem entirely realistic, although I actually think that the WMF could find the financial means to do exactly that; it would be a very strong signal and generate media attention for sure :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Doc James


@Doc James: Will you be again a candidate? After your irregular demotion from the board, without any proper reason, I would find it very fine if you would stand in this election again, to make clear, whether the actions by the sitting board against the community in the ditching of you could be set straight.
Regarding the rest of the board (and all candidates for the community posts): Will you refrain yourself in the future from such blatant disregard of the will of the communities, and ditch an elected member out of pure pettiness? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you User:Sänger. I have submitted my application for the election. Agree board members need to be able to take positions that are inline with community values without fear of being removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: - you might add your question to all candidates here on the questions page, or endorse the other question on the same subject. More people might see that page, and questions/answers there will be translated. I'll answer myself in due course! Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

María Sefidari aka Raystorm


Hello María,
as there currently is a male-only candidates list, and I don't know anything bad about you (it's not your fault, that you are not democratically elected but just proclaimed), would you consider another term on board? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

:). I look forward to answering your question(s) Sänger. Raystorm (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Voter requirements for developers


Someone asked me to help translate the "Requirements" / "Developers" section. This part in particular:

Or have commit access and have made at least one merged commits in git to Wikimedia Foundation utilized repos between 1 October 2016 and 1 April 2017.

I think the way this is worded is extremely confusing.

  • There is no longer such a thing as "commit access", it's a term from back when we stored our code in SVN. These days, anyone can sign up for what we call "developer access". It's not clear whether this requirement means that everyone with developer access can vote, or only people who can approve changes (so-called "+2 access", and much closer to what "commit access" used to be).
  • What are "Wikimedia Foundation utilized repos"? Does it mean all repositories in Gerrit, all repositories for code that Wikimedia Foundation developers maintain, or only repositories for code that we actually have deployed on any Wikimedia wiki? Is it limited only to repositories maintained in Gerrit, or also ones maintained externally (e.g. on GitHub)?
  • Technical terms like "commit" or "repo" ("repository") are probably unclear to casual readers, and a major pain to translate. I would recommend using more established terms like "patch", "code" or "software".
  • "Git" is misspelled "git" :)

Assuming the most lax possible interpretation, I would reword this as "Or have authored at least one patch for software maintained in Gerrit, or otherwise maintained by Wikimedia Foundation, that was accepted between 1 October 2016 and 1 April 2017.". But I don't really know how restrictive these criteria are meant to be. This seems a lot easier to achieve than making 300 edits, which is the requirement for editors.

I don't know if it's possible to reword this for these elections, but I'd appreciate if it was kept in mind for the next ones. Matma Rex (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This wording was taken from the previous election cycle without a change, which in turn was taken from the previous cycle ..... I agree that it need an update but the committee members are usually are not well versed in these matters. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Matma Rex:, thanks for the note. Even if it is too late for this election, it would be very helpful if you could make a suggestion from where the committee can start to reword for future elections. Alice Wiegand (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

MassMessage title


The announcement regarding the start of the Board elections was posted to village pumps. It was translated into various languages, including Dutch, but I noticed that the title of the message was still in English even though I did indeed translate it on Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Board voting has begun/nl. The same issue was present in German and in French as well, where it was subsequently fixed manually. Could someone look into what went wrong perhaps? Pinging @GVarnum-WMF: as I think you sent out the MassMessages. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

THX for this mentioning, I missed it in deWP, I have just translated it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC) P.S.: It was already translated here as well, the mass messenger was just too dumb (I guess it's a bot, not a human;).Reply
@SPQRobin and Sänger: Thank you for mentioning. It was not an oversight or accident, it is a technical limitation. To send a MassMessage as multilingual, we use a Lua module that depends on switch and substitution functions. It is not the actual MassMessage system that sets up the multilingual message ability, it involves a fair amount of manual work at this time. However, as I understand it, because of elements of the MassMessage code and core MediaWiki code around handling of headers, these methods will not work. As a result, we do not yet have a method for sending the MassMessage headers in other languages. Given the complexity of the technical problems causing it, I am not sure what the timeline for addressing it is. However, since we did not even have the ability to send multilingual MassMessages during the last election, I am optimistic that progress will be made. There are also requests to improve other aspects of this system and make it easier for the senders. As I said, a lot of progress has been made, but there is more progress to be made moving forward. Until then, we appreciate people translating it locally, but it is not something we can address on the sending side at this time. I do apologize that is the case, but we are doing our best within the technical limitations we have today. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
This is one thing the devs could do to do something productive instead of wasting time and money on Flow ;) No, really, communication with the real bosses of the WMF, the community, should be top priority of the million-dollar-business in SF. Having such lush resources and being not able to use the provided translations for the communities stinks of negligence. Not of you as a person, probably, but of the WMF as an institution, that obviously doesn't give a shit about being understood outside the english bubble. Yes, it's becoming a wee bit better since the full blow against the communities with SuperPutsch, but not everything seems to be proper internalised (see here). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: I appreciate this perspective, and have invited you to share it in more appropriate places before. You have opted not to do so, but I will once again note this viewpoint. However, as you have once again, ironically, opted to take an unnecessarily disrespectful tone while trying to make a point about respect and still not contributed anything new, I do not plan to continue engagement with you in this thread. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Very belated information


I learned about this election today, 11th of May via a mail you sent me. Since it has already started on the 1st of May and is to be finished by the 14th of May, I gather that you'd rather want me not to vote, and therefore are giving me as little time as possible to inform myself about the whole thing. Therefore, I'd like to second the opinion of the first poster, i.e., that this is proof of

"Respektlosigkeit, Überheblichkeit, Großkotzigkeit, Weltmachtsallüren, Großmannssucht", meaning, in English, disrespect, arrogance, snootiness, airs and graces of a world power, craving for status, and so on.

I cannot take this election seriosly, you're making fun of me.--Strombomboli (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Who are you trying to make fun of by quoting a known troll like Methodios? Braveheart (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Voting eligibility


I'm slightly confused by the documentation at Vote_Questions. The listed AccountEligibility tool seems to say I'm eligible to vote, but I get the message, "Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election" regardless. Is the tool a sufficient gauge to eligibility, or just a necessary one?

Regardless, I'm leaving this message here as the Vote_Questions page suggests. Crcarlin (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Crcarlin: I'm sorry for the confusion, checking the AccountEligibility tool it appears that you are not eligible because you don't have enough edits (you need to have over 300 total before April 1st and 20 between October 1 and April 1st. It's possible that you accidentally selected the wrong election on the eligibility checker? this link should automatically select this election. I'll check on why that isn't being done by the current link. Jalexander--WMF 20:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, [User:Jalexander-WMF|Jalexander]]. It's correctly showing up as ineligible now, which does fit with my memory of not having edited much lately. No telling if there was some sort of user error on my part before. Crcarlin (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply



Como puedo votar

Arnaldo james (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Desafortunadamente, no puedes votar. Se necesita tres cientos ediciones para calificar como un votante, y tu usario tiene menos que el numero requerido. Altamel (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please kick the translator


There's still the buttons and so on on the translated pages, probably because nobody kicked the translator whatever. Could someone please give it a head-up? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Sänger: Sure! Where is the issue? Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, you just did it. The issue was this until 5 minutes ago. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Great :) Glad that helped. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Play it again, Sam...Joe ;) The current elections are over as well, I just removed the buttons from the relevant pages, but someone with the right permission still has to say something along the lines "ready for translation" to propagate the changes to the translated versions: Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson, Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson/Candidates, Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Candidates, Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done, Sänger, thanks :) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The votewiki sidebar still links Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees rather than the FDC page. It's quite important that voters have a chance to get some information on the candidates (and the vote itself) before voting... --Nemo 08:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. --Nemo 14:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Voting banner accessibility


The banner, in addition to using the bleak/depressing broken/experimental black logo, uses black on black and grey on grey, which reduces accessibility. Please design election banners for being inclusive. --Nemo 08:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply


Maybe I'm dumb, but ultimately to get to this page I had to follow links in an email. The main FDC page barely links to last year's one, I think. (I'm also pretty sure I have made this remark about the FDC page not being up to date/easily understandable before, FWIW.) TY, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "the main FDC page"? Ruslik (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I realize I have posted on the wrong talk myself. Will move and clarify elsewhere. TY. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply