[Foundation-l] Reviving and reforming the new project policy
As an attempt to revive and reform the new project policy page on meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_policy), the content scope task force at strategy.wikimedia.org has written a new draft. Feedback, additions and changes to that page is very much appreciated. The draft is found at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Content_scope/Project_policy_draft /Dafer45 _ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Possible project
Samuel Klein meta...@... writes: Ram, thanks for sharing your interesting project. | | On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Platonides platoni...@... wrote: | | Librelist is a free as in freedom mailing list site for open source | projects. It is a place for FOSS communities to discuss all the things they | want without ads, censorship, signup requirements, bundled apps, or | requirements that you use any particular email client or service. | | Limited to FOSS communities? I don't think so. Platonides is right, it's not clearly part of our current mission - though it does facilitate some types of collaboration, mail threads are parallel to our notion of talk pages. There's certainly something to be gained from thinking about what our mailing lists provide that LiquidThreads* does not, and identifying/supporting efforts to improve that channel for conversations. (*This is our current concept of threaded discussion in the context of directly collaborating on some sort of lasting knowledge) But just as we don't support multiple wiki platforms or mailman itself, we aren't generally a project host. Have you talked to the FSF about hosting such a service, considering your FOSS focus? SJ Thanks for your opinion. I did not think about the FSF, that's a good idea and I will contact them. Ram. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 04/29/2010 06:32 PM, Tim Starling wrote: William Pietri wrote: As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update. We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs version of the German Wikipedia. We're pretty close to release, and we believe only minor UI issues remain. Between this update and the last one, the only commits made to the FlaggedRevs extension were localisation updates imported from translatewiki.net. But your language here implies that something actually happened this week. Could you perhaps be more specific as to what sort of work was done? Sure. The resolution to the apparent paradox is that not all useful work immediately results in commits. In particular, the major UI issue being worked on can be seen on this page: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Vince_%282005%29 In the upper right, you'll note a lock icon with (+) next to it. The UI mavens involved, Howie and Parul, feel that the current version isn't consistent with the direction the usability team has for the interface, so they're trying to come up with something that looks and works better. However, getting something that satisfies them and also looks and works properly in all browsers has been a challenge. I understand the Usability Initiative developers have offered technical assistance with that. This is pretty typical pre-release fit-and-finish stuff. I know it can be frustrating for project stakeholders, as it appears like not much is happening, but given the scale at which Wikipedia works and the importance of this project being well received, I think we're better off taking a bit longer for a solid user experience, especially the bit that appears on article pages. I know some additional work was done on cleaning up names, labels, and text in the interface; if you're curious about exactly what went on, I can ask. My understanding is that is almost done, though. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 29 April 2010 22:24, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update. We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs version of the German Wikipedia. We're pretty close to release, and we believe only minor UI issues remain. You are nowhere near ready for release. I reported several significant problems here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:FlaggedRevs_issues#Reviewing_edits None of them has been fixed and you haven't replied to my bug report with any reasons for not fixing them. You have been commenting that people have been reporting fewer and fewer problems; what do you expect if you completely ignore the ones people have already reported? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 04/30/2010 03:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 29 April 2010 22:24, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote: As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update. We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs version of the German Wikipedia. We're pretty close to release, and we believe only minor UI issues remain. You are nowhere near ready for release. I reported several significant problems here: http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:FlaggedRevs_issues#Reviewing_edits None of them has been fixed and you haven't replied to my bug report with any reasons for not fixing them. You have been commenting that people have been reporting fewer and fewer problems; what do you expect if you completely ignore the ones people have already reported? Hi. Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, we didn't completely ignore that comment, or any other; we've been going through the comments on phone meetings every week. We did, however, fail to respond to that one, which I'm sorry for. I'll make sure to bring these up next we talk. Going back through, out of 26 comments, I see 3 that didn't get replies, so I'll be sure to get those, too. Thanks. So i can be sure I understand, when you say nowhere near ready for release, are you referring just to those 3 issues? I believe the question of speed there has mainly to do with labs, rather than Flagged Revs itself, and the other 2 points you mention are suggested UI improvements. From your phrasing, I take it you believe those UI changes are important enough to delay release? Thanks, William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 1 May 2010 00:06, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: Hi. Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, we didn't completely ignore that comment, or any other; we've been going through the comments on phone meetings every week. We did, however, fail to respond to that one, which I'm sorry for. I'll make sure to bring these up next we talk. Going back through, out of 26 comments, I see 3 that didn't get replies, so I'll be sure to get those, too. Thanks. So i can be sure I understand, when you say nowhere near ready for release, are you referring just to those 3 issues? I believe the question of speed there has mainly to do with labs, rather than Flagged Revs itself, and the other 2 points you mention are suggested UI improvements. From your phrasing, I take it you believe those UI changes are important enough to delay release? Well, I haven't done much testing after reporting those issues, since I was being ignored, so I can't say if there are any other problems. I just tested the speed and it took about 9 seconds to review. I think anything over half a second is too long (remember, people need to be able to review edits without significantly slowing down their RC patrol), so is labs really nearly 20 times slower than the live site? I think the order of the items on the page is worth getting right in the first version. When people are first exposed to a new feature it needs to be as intuitive as possible. It's hardly a difficult thing to change, anyway. I wouldn't call what page I end up on at the end of the process part of the user interface. It is part of the path through the software. I also think it is worth getting right from the start. If people find this new feature annoying, they won't use it (and won't be likely to start using it once you fix it). If people don't use it, you have wasted a lot of everyone's time, including your own. That means you need to get it right first time. That is why you have a test site - so you can fix all the bugs before going live. You don't put half-completed code on a top 5 website. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
William, You thanked Thomas three times in that e-mail. If I may say so, such courtesy is unwarranted, in light of the terseness of his most recent post. We're all volunteers, so colour me confused as to why people think head-biting will achieve anything. YMMV. Anthony ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 1 May 2010 00:50, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote: William, You thanked Thomas three times in that e-mail. If I may say so, such courtesy is unwarranted, in light of the terseness of his most recent post. We're all volunteers, so colour me confused as to why people think head-biting will achieve anything. My understanding is that William is being paid. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
My understanding is that William is being paid. Seriously? Well, okay then. If that's what our grants are being spent on… ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 04/30/2010 04:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: You thanked Thomas three times in that e-mail. If I may say so, such courtesy is unwarranted, in light of the terseness of his most recent post. We're all volunteers, so colour me confused as to why people think head-biting will achieve anything. My understanding is that William is being paid. I'm intrigued by the notion that you don't have to be nice to people that are paid to deal with you. Since I gave the foundation a 70% discount from my normal rates, perhaps you can shoot for a mix of 70% courtesy and 30% head-biting? Thanks, William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Anthony wiki...@googlemail.com wrote: My understanding is that William is being paid. Seriously? Well, okay then. If that's what our grants are being spent on… Jeez, does it matter? If William's style is to deal with cranky comments by being as polite as possible and acknowledging people engaging in discussion, even if they're being jerks about it, well -- more power to him. That shouldn't have a darn thing to do with getting paid or not. Especially for someone who was calling someone else out for being rude, your message here is out of line. C'mon, people. I have met most of the people commenting in this thread in real life and therefore know y'all are over the age of majority -- so act like adults already. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 1 May 2010 01:14, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: On 04/30/2010 04:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: You thanked Thomas three times in that e-mail. If I may say so, such courtesy is unwarranted, in light of the terseness of his most recent post. We're all volunteers, so colour me confused as to why people think head-biting will achieve anything. My understanding is that William is being paid. I'm intrigued by the notion that you don't have to be nice to people that are paid to deal with you. Since I gave the foundation a 70% discount from my normal rates, perhaps you can shoot for a mix of 70% courtesy and 30% head-biting? I don't do nice, to staff or volunteers. I make the point that I feel needs to be made. This does tend to annoy a lot of people, but despite that a large number of people actively choose to work with me because they realise that my approach gets good results. The main difference in my approach to staff and volunteers is that I hold staff to higher standards. If you are a volunteer, I expect you to do your best, whatever that may be. If you are being paid then I expect you to do a good job. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 04/30/2010 05:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: I'm intrigued by the notion that you don't have to be nice to people that are paid to deal with you. Since I gave the foundation a 70% discount from my normal rates, perhaps you can shoot for a mix of 70% courtesy and 30% head-biting? I don't do nice, to staff or volunteers. I make the point that I feel needs to be made. This does tend to annoy a lot of people, but despite that a large number of people actively choose to work with me because they realise that my approach gets good results. Ok. For what it's worth, I think you're creating a false dichotomy; the making of a point and the grace with which it's made are, in my experience, mostly unrelated. But that's your problem, not mine. You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more energy to deal with non-nice requests. It's like that for most consultants I know. So your preferred working style costs the foundation more and makes it a bit less likely that people with other options will choose to work with the foundation. The more community members eschew politeness, the stronger the effect. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 1 May 2010 01:32, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more energy to deal with non-nice requests. Really? How does me adding more words to my emails save you time? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 04/30/2010 05:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 1 May 2010 01:32, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote: You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more energy to deal with non-nice requests. Really? How does me adding more words to my emails save you time? It's not the quantity of words, but the choice of them. When I am dealing with a polite message, I can write a quick reply. With a prickly one, I have to do more drafts, so I can get past my first reaction, a mainly negative one, and produce something positive in tone and substance. I also need more time between messages, so that my irritation in one doesn't slop over onto some undeserving correspondent. As long as we're on the topic of etiquette, I find it frustrating when people pick out one particular bit to reply to and ignore the broader point. I add that only because I'm not sure if this was part of your intentional policy against niceness, or a more accidental sort. Hoping that is useful, William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
On 1 May 2010 02:23, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote: As long as we're on the topic of etiquette, I find it frustrating when people pick out one particular bit to reply to and ignore the broader point. I add that only because I'm not sure if this was part of your intentional policy against niceness, or a more accidental sort. I reply to those parts of a message that I have something to say in response to. I try to keep my correspondence concise (which, before anyone comments, doesn't necessarily mean short!), so I don't reply to something if I don't have anything to say that would further the discussion. This may be because I agree with what has been said, that I have no strong opinions on the matter, that I disagree but don't think I'm likely to change anybody's mind or any number of other reasons. I could reply purely to make my opinions known, but I don't see any benefit in people knowing my opinion just for the sake of it. (If them knowing my opinion is likely to make them take different action that I consider better, that would be a reason to reply.) If I have relevant factual information, then I will usually share it (for example, this email is sharing an explanation of my actions - that is relevant factual information). If it makes you feel better, you can assume I agree with anything I don't explicitly disagree with - it's not an accurate assumption, but it will rarely do any harm. Incidentally, I don't have a policy against niceness, just a lack of a policy in favour of it. I rarely go out of my way to offend people (sometimes it is an effective way of getting their attention, but rarely, since negative attention is usually of limited use). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
(Sorry for top-posting: Blackberry.) I just want to add a brief note supporting what William's saying. Yes -- it definitely takes more time to respond to angry or hostile-seeming mails. Trust gets impaired, and so the respondent spends time trying to figure out whether the person's really angry, or just curt... maybe asking other people if they have any insight and then framing a very careful reply and rereading it for tone before hitting send. Essentially, it's just easier and faster to have open conversation if the tone is constructive all round. So yes: hostility costs money. One answer to that is F2F meetings. Spending in-person time together definitely builds trust and friendliness. Once we know each other as human beings, online interactions are faster, easier, with less friction. I for example have now met Thomas Dalton in person three or four times, which is good. I like him much more now than I used to :-) Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: William Pietri will...@scissor.com Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:23:13 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29 On 04/30/2010 05:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 1 May 2010 01:32, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote: You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more energy to deal with non-nice requests. Really? How does me adding more words to my emails save you time? It's not the quantity of words, but the choice of them. When I am dealing with a polite message, I can write a quick reply. With a prickly one, I have to do more drafts, so I can get past my first reaction, a mainly negative one, and produce something positive in tone and substance. I also need more time between messages, so that my irritation in one doesn't slop over onto some undeserving correspondent. As long as we're on the topic of etiquette, I find it frustrating when people pick out one particular bit to reply to and ignore the broader point. I add that only because I'm not sure if this was part of your intentional policy against niceness, or a more accidental sort. Hoping that is useful, William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
Can anyone remind me what the per day and per month post limits are, and confirm that someone is still keeping track? We've established in the past that a collegial atmosphere is desired by the people who post to and read this list. Some have never agreed, but that is why some have previously been moderated. Limits and moderation have been the only tools effective against those who can't find the energy to be nice; reason has never worked, though it has been deployed at each opportunity. Let's use the tools at hand, and avoid sidetracking useful discussion with meta problems. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Respect. If you can't, use private mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL25CxAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LC8MIANso1Zh8avMk3EAeYwtZ4Tse nFt7NBCbSa67bWJOW59/HwYw+za6bFVX8y0ce9grxc/ziht9iK9TSvfFxm8cTL6k W6iKnkelYaKB4lpw1D93FTnycG7cPntLK+TyEaEJJjVcnE6ia16xuNfi30krZ3aP DjPzu04nL+n+ixSZlVJsSjRLrKiXX0M88NzX16Lv79HGxJb7qTjWYy8hyHbVO3zu +CiHm3Q9qu1bd9m48kLP3C6WTA/oNq6hYYGTlTekHR8zBTOTZbN1nHSo5dWX7QO+ ZldByjooSpFr3ab9Ji9HBsAuHyZ3RFyor76D03HgpkQRl2Xhu4uE2KB3Uq/uwQE= =EsxD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
