Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moving forward: a proposal (Re: Community/WMF)
FT2, 13/05/2013 01:59: [...] This is not at all the first time of clumsy handling, or conflicting actions and perceptions, leading to tensions and drama between the editing community and foundation. [...] I don't know if that's the actual problem, I would like the outcome to be a *living document*, like any other major policy, that can be used to *understand how to reduce friction*, and *best practices and understandings of viewpoints, within different parts of our Movement*, and thereby ensuring everyone involved is more aware of these aspects and of best practices in working with other areas and subgroups in our Community. [...] nor if this may help, even if it was possible to write such a document. I thought yes after reading https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Patience and remembering http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/CommunityMayNotScale «community standards and unwritten rules stop working», which may suggest to make rules written. But Clifford Adams notes on that page: «I wonder if it is the community focus that is not scaling». Indeed, what's the focus/scope of foundationwiki now? I don't have the slightest idea, after the recent facts. Perhaps the WMF does, but it completely failed to communicate it: [[Wikimedia:Welcome]] has never been updated; roles are now more unclear than ever. We also have a precedent: for a while people tried to establish standards for Internal-l, and mostly failed; then they started wondering *why* did Internal-l even exist, and again failed to answer; conclusion, they just decided to stop communicating and now hardly look at each other. Lovely. So the two concrete suggestions to which I came while writing this are: 1) Decide who at WMF is in charge of WMF wiki (Comms would seem the most obvious? it's all LCA department anyway), define its scope and communicate it; decide roles and technologies in consequence. If [[Wikimedia:Welcome]] hadn't been so outdated, maybe community members would have understood what was expected from them; etc. 2) Appoint Clifford Adams to the advisory board and start using the AB at last? ;-) Sunir Shah too (already noted several times on this list). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Moving forward: a proposal (Re: Community/WMF)
I've started a new thread to step back from the long thread, and look forward towards something that I think we need - or might want - to do. This is not at all the first time of clumsy handling, or conflicting actions and perceptions, leading to tensions and drama between the editing community and foundation. There are some common themes. As noted by Sue and others, WMF and the community may have different low-level priorities and motivators. They have a different structure and legal context. There are different scales and kinds of consequences possible. Even when contemplating the same issue, the processes and input of both may be equally valid but diverge a lot. Last, even when a WMF matter is valid or chosen diligently, the communication aspects of transparency, consultation, and mutual respect can be missing, and it may be perceived as very or grossly inappropriate or a breach of unspoken etiquette. *This has added heat and fuel to many incidents over many years. Not just one or a few matters. It benefits nobody that we give no guidance to reduce or (if able) avoid these confrontations in future, and no one part of the wider Community can draft such guidance in isolation. *I think it's time we addressed it head on. I would like to call on WMF and the Community (in its broadest sense) to set out terms, and organize, a formal consultation, to answer these questions: 1. *What expectations and needs do the Volunteer Community, Chapters, and WMF, have of each other?* 2. *What guidance and guidelines can we agree upon*, that can be given to new staff at WMF/Chapters, or referenced by anyone in the Movement, to understand how to recognize and deal with situations that may impinge on other parts of the Movement? 3. *In particular, what best practices or necessities can be outlined for someone* wishing to broach, consult, and progress an proposal or action that may be seen as unexpected by a subset of the Movement, and, if there must for operational/legal purposes be a done deal, how do we collectively concur these (hopefully uncommon) cases should be approved, handled, and discussed/communicated? I would like the outcome to be a *living document*, like any other major policy, that can be used to *understand how to reduce friction*, and *best practices and understandings of viewpoints, within different parts of our Movement*, and thereby ensuring everyone involved is more aware of these aspects and of best practices in working with other areas and subgroups in our Community. I'd note that policies often contain nuances and don't always imply a single fixed answer exists. Their aim is to reduce the areas of discord, even if it can't be eliminated, by outlining what is mandatory, or preferred, or good practice, or unacceptable, or may be important to know. I see the result as being a policy of that kind. I'd note also that although mainly considering WMF and the volunteer community, it's worth addressing broadly, because other movement subgroups can also have internal decisions capable of this kind of problem. For example, and in principle, OTRS administrators might one day make a unilateral decision to limit or alter some aspect of how OTRS and its team operates, a chapter might make a clumsy or ill-conceived choice affecting WMF or editorial aspects in a given country, or a computer/data/system administrator may make a decision about computer matters, as well. There may be useful guidance applicable to others in the movement. FT2 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moving forward: a proposal (Re: Community/WMF)
Afterthought x 3: - WMF and its staff should probably have an explicit understanding that they often need to bend for community approaches and collaboration, and expectations (rather than the other way round). *Rationale: -* WMF needs to ensure that staff know good ways to work with the community. It's not symmetrical: a legal body can have meetings and executive decisions, and everyone understands how they work and their meaning. But the community doesn't have that kind of process and resists being shoehorned if its own (inchoate) ways are not respected. Community expectations probably include transparency, deliberation, and expectation management, ie no (unpleasant+sudden) surprises. Most people know this but somehow it failed here. That was avoidable. Community expectations are nowhere summarized, nor how to meet them, nor what we * collectively* feel should happen when faced with a WMF decision that someone feels must be done. If it can be perceived as lapsed or breached this easily *despite* staff awareness, then we need to set it out, not assume it, for all our good. - The community needs to appreciate that WMF sometimes has to make these decisions. A mature appreciation of WMF role and position would include agreement if possible that the need can arise, which kinds of issues might appropriately need a unilateral decision, and how it should take place. We should agree some kind of reliable guidance however short to say what WMF staff can do or might be expected to have tried doing, and what's needed in communication or action to minimize any discord. - Last, even if there had been transparency and consultation in the recent matter, there is still a sense by some volunteers that the done deal element was in its own right, inappropriate or inept. So transparency and consultation alone may not be all that's needed. What else is needed probably ought to be worked out on Meta so it isn't just limited to list subscribers. FT2 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
