Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Yes. See https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft=2409367 at section "Final approval of CoC", where Matt's statement at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft=784 is discussed. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Pine W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Joseph Seddon
I would like to also point out a central notice banner was displayed on Mediawiki.org to logged in users. Seddon On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Gergő Tisza wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Adrian Raddatz > wrote: > > > A lack of other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Gergő Tisza
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Adrian Raddatz wrote: > A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack > of advertising, and half on a lack of interest. > The drafting process was advertised to the point of obnoxiousness. I count 30 announcements

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Todd Allen
The idea was floated that since discussion has taken place on individual sections, discussion was not needed for the final document. I did not see any indication that this was the final decision on the matter. Though clarification would be quite appreciated. Todd On Feb 26, 2017 5:12 PM, "Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Pine W
>now reneged on previous agreements to hold a final vote Has that actually happened? I'm hoping that no statement like "the total document isn't subject to an RfC" was actually made. That would add needless disagreement to a process that is challenging enough even in the best of circumstances,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Leila Zia
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Leila Zia wrote: > > > […] > > > On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and > > are not happy about how some aspects have gone: > > > Matthew and a few other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Perhaps this need for use cases was addressed in the "report" which the staff commissioned from consultants over a year ago but which was never shared with the community at large – assuming that it was ever produced. "Rogol" On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Isarra Yos

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Isarra Yos
On 26/02/17 18:21, MZMcBride wrote: Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples. I'd like to see links to Gerrit changesets and Phabricator tasks where this new policy and its committee would help. If you want to make claims of serious unacknowledged problems,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Tim Landscheidt
David Gerard wrote: >> Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the >> Code of Conduct. Its draft implicitly alleges that the >> technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent >> need of someone with a rake while protecting actual offend- >> ers by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread
On 26 February 2017 at 18:12, Pax Ahimsa Gethen wrote: > Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think > some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary > to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Adrian Raddatz
In terms of substantive concerns, the ArbCom model is what most non-staff commenters seem to be caught up on. I'm personally concerned with any creation of a dispute resolution "class" of editor, since I feel that the community does a terrible job of mob resolution at places like ANI on enwiki, or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread MZMcBride
David Gerard wrote: >This is a pretty reasonable presumption regarding technical spaces: if >you *don't* have a code of conduct, it's a reasonable conclusion from >outside that there will be serious unacknowledged problems. Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for marginalized people, including the neuroatypical that Tim refers to (somewhat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
I don't think the WMF is "trying to exempt itself from its own creation", it is simpy giving its own staff a privileged position within it. Anyone who makes a complaint against a member of staff will have the privacy of their complaint breached by having details sent to the WMF with its millions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread David Gerard
On 26 February 2017 at 17:49, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the > Code of Conduct. Its draft implicitly alleges that the > technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent > need of someone with a rake while

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Robert Fernandez wrote: >>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not >>spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally" >>exercise power over others > If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction > of the bad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread MZMcBride
Tim Landscheidt wrote: >This is a circular and illogical argument. Just because >someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does >not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take. >And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo- >ple to keep pushing the cart to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

2017-02-26 Thread Peter Southwood
I agree with the general concepts raised here, far too many surveys (in general, not pointing fingers at anyone specific)are appallingly badly set up, with leading questions, irrelevant options, insufficient options etc. Much of this could be avoided by extra scrutiny before finalisation.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Vi to
I think methodological objections shouldn't prevail over substantial objections. I can agree most of consensus in CoC draft came from WMF staffers/contractors, but: *no one was prevented from weighing-in *lists were filled with invitations to weigh-in *I think most of us didn't comment just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Robert Fernandez
>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not >spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally" >exercise power over others If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction of the bad faith accusations that have been leveled at them, the howls

Re: [Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

2017-02-26 Thread Jonathan Cardy
I'm keen on surveys, used to work in that line a few years ago, and the first we did was I think at least in part a response to a proposal I made on the 2009 Strategy wiki. In hindsight the big mistakes of that survey were that we didn't repeat it annually, and the lack of community input in