This seems a reasonably prudent path.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Pine W
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations
I've been reading sections of the strategy document with a couple of
thoughts in mind.
* The relatively decentralized nature of the community makes
negotiations challenging, both within the community and between the
community and WMF.
* Clashes between the community and WMF are usually lose-lose
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: 04 February 2020 13:56
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community
conversations launching next week
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating
wrote
Hi Aron,
>
> I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
> harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
> editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
> who aren't protected by their established status, not us).
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating
wrote:
> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>
While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and
superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed
Hello,
I strongly agree with what Chris wrote.
In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
talk about an issue. They say things like:
* "this feels like défa vu"
* "you are not constructive"
*
>
> Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over
> four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as
> such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of
> mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer affiliated
Hi Dan,
I think that there are a couple of lines of thought here. I think that
we should make a distinction between individuals and the institution
of WMF.
For the former, I think that you make a good point. Along the same
lines, there were probably people who worked at WMF at the time and
had
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:49, Pine W wrote:
> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.
Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over
four years old. It was a
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Pine W wrote:
> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.
>
It's interesting that this topic came up, as there was a bug in MediaViewer
that disturbed me so much I've
Hi Aron,
I should be careful not to paint everyone with the same brush.
I have great respect for WMF's mission. It would be difficult to have
adequate legal support and technical infrastructure for Wikimedia projects
without one or more organizations providing formal and ongoing support.
WMF as
Leila, the decrease in interest that you mention is typical of processes
in which the continued discussion leads to recommendation which are only
recommendations. If I were of the opinion that what I said here would only
at most be used as input to the person actually making the decision, I
would
Hello Pine,
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Aron,
>
> Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
> the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
> Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
>
Hi Aron,
Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was to
The following views are mine. I'm not affiliated with either the Foundation
or those speaking in the name of the communities. This is a volunteer's
opinion.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:24, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments.
>
> I think that global consensus
Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments.
I think that global consensus is possible, but it's challenging.
I remain concerned about the current timeline for this strategy process. I
think that after initial community discussions, a phased approach over a
period of years for
That's...really not how this works. We don't say "It's hard to gain
consensus, so screw it, we're going ahead anyway." If you can't gain
consensus for what you're doing, then you should stop doing it. Yes,
consensus for major changes is hard. That doesn't mean it is not required
or should be
[writing at my personal capacity.]
Hi Pine,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W wrote:
>
> * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
> of the recommendations.
True consensus based
Hi Nicole and Kaarel,
Thank you for sharing your comments.
A few points:
* I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
of the recommendations.
* Hopefully the discussions in the next few weeks
Hi Lodewijk,
Thanks for your questions and feedback. I would like to respond to some of
it already, but need a bit more time to answer the other parts.
* We have learned a lot from the experience of the last round of community
conversations and are indeed aiming for a more active, responsive
Just to emphasize my point: I have searched, and was still unable to find
any serious consideration or response for some of the feedback that was
provided all the way back in August. In the next iteration, these examples
seem to have been ignored.
It may well be that this is a particularly sad
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the community conversations process
and your care for doing it in the right way! It is truly appreciated.
I am happy to share a couple of points from the design perspective:
- The movement strategy recommendations are, as some of you have
Hi Anders,
I think that the original hope was that there would be community consensus
around the recommendations from the strategy process. However, what I have
heard so far leads me to think that the reception to the recommendations
has been mixed.
Neither the WMF Board nor the community are
Hi Nicole,
Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some disappointed
community members because their feedback did not really spark any
conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to focus
on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.
However, I
The people who has written the forthcoming recommendations, have been
engaged for around two years, and they have spend manmonths of dedicated
work.
It is not realistic to believe that an outsider (as we others now are)
can substantially change any of the recommendations. We can though give
I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger
concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say
that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the
community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so
that it
I understand that the community conversation is planned to be conducted for
around the next 6 weeks, it’s the discussion of the summary of that, which is
planned for one week.
Alice.
> Am 14.01.2020 um 08:47 schrieb Todd Allen :
>
> Surely longer than a week can
> be allowed for discussion of
I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
Hi Nicole,
After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in problems.
In particular, giving the core team one week to review
Hi everyone,
We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
new round of community conversations.
== First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
The writers have been
30 matches
Mail list logo
