Wait, so the policy change is about to be implemented, the discussion on private list has been going on for a while.
Some peoples already submitted their IDs and the deadline for ID submission is in a few weeks...and asking about it here is being called presumptuous. How is it a "good-faith interpretation" for not announcing the changes since they've already started implementing it ? they even decided on a deadline already. I don't follow. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > phoebe ayers wrote: > > It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing > > changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was > > so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change > > or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what > > would be announced. > > In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people > have > tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is > allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by > staff." I don't disagree. > > My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the > announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a > courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain > volunteers > need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a > lot > of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not > considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS > mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, > it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least > why > there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it > intentional? Was it simply an oversight? > > Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes > (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the > pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department > doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the > community. That's the larger issue, as I see it. > > Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going > to > announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't > seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, > it > leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like > these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and > thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS > mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this. > > > The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, > and > > there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of > course, > > broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to > non-private > > data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have > thoughts > > they should weigh in. > > People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being > chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see > how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some > posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring > here primarily to Steven's posts). > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Bartol Flint Student Erasmus University Rotterdam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
