Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread David Gerard
On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker wrote: > I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor > grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully > embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases, > but it is so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anthony, I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made this distinction clearer from the outset: 1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is what I think you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Anthony Cole
Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it. Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I wouldn't bother reading their reports. If you and Andreas were to sign on,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
Hi Anthony, Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Anthony Cole
Wrong link. It's here. http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/ On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole wrote: > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Anthony Cole
This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that seems to cover most of the milestones. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Brandon and Sarah: > > I'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Molly White < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that > was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at > last glance) members that their comments and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-22 Thread Jane Darnell
Yes!!! This is why I haven't spent much time contributing on Meta at all since then: " We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-22 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-22 10:31, Erik Moeller wrote: 2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter : Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-22 Thread Erik Moeller
2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter : > Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state > that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk > pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice. Our early

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-22 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-22 04:42, SarahSV wrote: So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-22 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-22 04:01, Gergő Tisza wrote: One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be diverted into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts. At the end of the day, people will prefer tools

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread geni
On 22 February 2016 at 01:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: > The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result > of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan > Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Anthony Cole
I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis, once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable foundation whose mission would cover this? Anthony Cole On Mon, Feb 22,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV wrote: > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service. > > But

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Molly White
It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at last glance) members that their comments and the names they use on Facebook be published, and I'm not sure that's feasible. Still, it's a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:42 AM, SarahSV wrote: > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what > hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, > might help us to have generative conversations on this topic?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what > hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow, > might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 22:42, SarahSV wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth > wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but > > embraced? > > > > What would need to be different? > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread SarahSV
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but > embraced? > > What would need to be different? > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get > better at asking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > Here, Brandon, I think you're > implying that there is fundamental resistance to change. Let me disabuse you of a notion: I am not _implying_ this. I am _directly stating it._ --- Brandon Harris ::

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ... On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: > Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all > attempts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
Meh, I'm fine with people talking in any venue they wish. Speaking only for myself, I don't need to read everything everyone has written; if it's something that needs to be brought to broader attention, chances are someone will facilitate it. But I think even those who are entirely happy to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Gergő Tisza
One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be diverted into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts. At the end of the day, people will prefer tools that work well over tools that align

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Andrew Lih
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Thyge wrote: > I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they > prefer. Doing > it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by > the community, > because it excludes a lot of people who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Thyge
I acknowledge that a group of wikipedians may discuss in any forum, they prefer. Doing it in a closed forum on FB does not, however, constitute a discussion by the community, because it excludes a lot of people who reject i.e. the FB license, the FB terms of use, and last not least the FB privacy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Andrew Lih
Hi all, it’s probably useful to paste in the “What for?” message for the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. Hopefully it will help clear things up. —- From: https://www.facebook.com/notes/wikipedia-weekly/introduction-to-the-ww-group/961015923946239 This is a quick note about what goes on here in

[Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov, Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
I can agree with what you're saying, Craig. I can also understand what Brandon is saying - that some people prefer that interface. Unlike many Facebook pages, though, this one is not public and cannot be viewed by anyone who does not have a FB account. It's the one venue that many interested

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Craig Franklin
People will have discussions at a location that is personally convenient for them. Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see that there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the discussion. Cheers, Craig On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Brandon Harris
Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all attempts to fix this have been shot down with venom. > On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we > applying for a grant? ---

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Thyge
I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. Are we applying for a grant? Thyge 2016-02-22 0:51 GMT+01:00 Newyorkbrad : > I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I > only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Newyorkbrad
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already have Wikipedia :) Newyorkbrad On 2/21/16, Risker wrote: > As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access > to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-21 Thread Risker
As has already been explained on this list, many people do not have access to Facebook. If this is something germane and useful to a lot of people on this list, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask Jonathan to post it here. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 18:34, Anthony Cole