> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
communities.
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to
Over the past few weeks I have been discussing how to correct the lack
of information about community opinion and the disadvantages of
relying on opt-in (RFCs or less formal "speak up and stick your neck
out") methods for addressing the problem with Foundation staff, other
community members, and ou
WMF staff are certainly contributors within the technical spaces. There's
no reason why they shouldn't be able to participate in the COC formation
process (which I have unrelated concerns with...)
A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
of advertising, and half on
* The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the communities.
* Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
involved, are part of the communities.
* It is illogical for us to tell the p
Hi Katherine,
Just to follow up on some of the conversations yesterday on IRC, there were
some questions about which functions (e.g. fundraising, legal, technical
development, governance, communications) fit into which track. I'm thinking
that a number of functions will be shared across multiple t
Hi all!
Apologies for getting this out on a Friday, when so many of you are already
enjoying your weekends.
This week we hosted staff members from around the Foundation here in San
Francisco for annual planning preparations. As a result, we have a slightly
shorter update this week, but with some
Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
like to see
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W wrote:
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft
One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people th
I think we definitely should think about next steps if the draft fails to
gain consensus. (And, for that matter, if it does get consensus, there will
be a lot of followup work in that case too.)
But if it fails, one of the most important questions will be "Why did
people object to this and how can
Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:
I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
either fails to achieve conse
Hello
Since the launch of the translation effort,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmaa_Mahfouz went from 11 languages to 20
! Nice !
We still need your help to give a bit more visibility on the web to 16
African women.
Please join to help here or relay :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/16_
Pine
When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
> contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
> influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
> moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
> effect
12 matches
Mail list logo
