Hiya Sj A couple of points.
We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember the suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in the group, this was news to me. Since, both you and Stu are on the board, this conflates the situation a bit. I think we have an idea about where the group is and how far our recommendations have gone, but Stu and other board/staff members, and others have been generously using MR group in their discussions. Bence hit the point on the head in his reply on Internal. Regards Theo On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Theo, > > > If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought > we > > would have agreement internally first > > This wasn't taken as a final recommendation by MR, though the Board > was focused on the topic thanks to the public work that this group has > done. We are circulating this among this group over the weekend, and > to the community afterwards for a month, for public editing and > discussion. > > > > I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a > > locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was > > It's not locked, hence the public review. The Board is committed to > recognizing new models and simplifying the path to recognition and > joining the movement -- but recognizes that the details may need > refinement. > > SJ >
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
