Hi Steve, On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:19 AM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Keep in mind that the "Wiki" way of doing things was never about > putting responsibility on just one or few shoulders.
That's a good point. > I simply mean > that if it's a matter of brainstorming, organizing, qualitative > prioritizing, and executing ideas, the disembodied gentry of the > Wikimedia community are always at your disposal. We could all use more qualitative prioritizing -- -What of our many activities are best furthering our [capital] Goals? -Which of our side projects could really help our core 'project' work? -What are the major needs shared by all parts of the community? -What communities never learn how to contribute in the first place? -- of these, which ones should we welcome first into the fold? I would personally love to see the subjective priority lists (say, a top-20 list) of What to Fix and what to do next, from many different Projects, WikiProjects, dev clusters and other community groups. Maybe we'll get to that in the Strategy Project -- but many people find that too abstract to contribute to at the moment. > It also occurs to me that it may also be quite relevant for others to > know exactly what Jennifer thought about her job. She's no doubt > intimately acquainted with each of her planned and proposed tasks, I don't know if she's reading this list, but you can discuss with her more directly. Expressing personal interest is often a good way to learn what others think. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jennifer_Riggs http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jennifer_Riggs SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
