The Wikimedia Strategy 2030 recommendations were published on January 20,
2020, but the language, size, and complexity can be a intimidating, even
for native English speakers.
I've attempted to summarize the recommendations into ONE PAGE, highlighting
key concepts, structures and processes
Yes, thank you Andrew, that was actually what I was looking for. It is
simply very difficult e.g. to search for a sentence that somebody quoted
when the text is shattered over several pages and then with parts hidden as
"collapsable". (I do not blame or criticise somebody for that, it is just
that
Thank you, Andrew. These PDF files weren't there when I looked, but thanks
for pointing that out.
*Itzik Edri*
Chairperson (volunteer)
it...@wikimedia.org.il
+972-54-5878078
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:47 PM Andrew Lih wrote:
> There are PDF versions, which may not be easily spottable. They
Best practices for a good consensus are not political games. However
dismissing the concerns of long term members of the community that the
strategy references in every recommendation, by extremely obvious tone
policing, is playing politics and marginalization.
Thanks for referencing my Commons
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:50, Fæ wrote:
> The WMF board and their CEO know it is in their interest to take on any
> firm community consensus rather than playing
> political games to get around it.
>
Political games, like requesting supermajority
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 12:57, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic
> in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most
> neutral way.
>
The strong focus on voting is in itself, not neutral. Voting at this scale
There are PDF versions, which may not be easily spottable. They are the
bottom of the introduction page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
Core:
Hi all
I agree on that point.
I suggest to the community to organize themselves to give a feedback and to
contribute to have better and widely supported reccomandations but this
process must progress.
Everything can be improved and can be better but what is important is to
keep this goal of
I'm not sure why you want to vote on something that you will have to adapt
to your community needs and implement accordingly, Ziko. What exactly is
contentious about them that needs a vote, especially when the
implementation will hopefully lead to more decentralised structures? Or do
you think it
Hello Anders,
Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic
in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most
neutral way.
Anders, your opinion is that the recommendations are „wonderful“. I want to
tolerate your opinion. But do you also tolerate
Sometimes I wonder if we really belong to the same movement or even live
on the same planet.
A wonderful work has been done with the recomendations, and the end
result looks very fine, with only a few minor comments needed as far as
I can see.
And I believe whatever we think of the
Ziko, we can vote on whatever we want, whenever we want.
Us having a RFC on meta does not need the WMF to approve it or like it. An
openly run RFC could itself recommend a board resolution asking the
community appointed board members (you know, the legitimate ones that are
accountable to us) to
Hi Todd,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 8:06 PM Todd Allen wrote:
> These are very disappointing. It does not seem like a bit of the feedback
> on earlier versions was taken into consideration at all. Can we expect
> anything we say to matter this time around, or will we once again be
> talking to the
Hello,
We now have the confirmation on a Meta Wiki talk page: the WMF is not going
to let the communities vote on the recommendations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations#Community_consensus
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Di., 21. Jan. 2020 um 09:39
We will be again talking to the wall. (Would be, I am not going to react
this time).
Best
Yaroslav
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:06 AM Todd Allen wrote:
> Katherine,
>
> These are very disappointing. It does not seem like a bit of the feedback
> on earlier versions was taken into consideration at
A huge thank you to all the volunteers, staff and the core team who
invested in this process unimaginable hours of work.
Is there maybe a one document/pdf/printable version of the recommendations?
It is a long document which I personally want to read carefully and I find
it slightly complicated
Katherine,
These are very disappointing. It does not seem like a bit of the feedback
on earlier versions was taken into consideration at all. Can we expect
anything we say to matter this time around, or will we once again be
talking to the wall?
Todd
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 8:24 PM Katherine
Dear all,
I wanted to share some news with you: the first version of the movement
strategy recommendations document has been published on Meta [1]. On behalf
of the movement strategy working groups and recommendation writers, I am
honored to present them to you. We ask you to please take a moment
18 matches
Mail list logo
