Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-24 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:48, Dennis During  wrote:

> The sad fact is that the only way the larger community would be likely to
> take such proposals seriously would be if there were an imminent deadline.
> Unfortunately, it is hard to take the imminent deadline seriously given the
> absence of substance in some areas.  Thus a chance has been missed to get
> substantial involvement from the broader community.
>

This is quite confusing.
1. There *is *a proposed deadline.
2. I agree to not take it seriously.
3. How is it a fact, that an imminent deadline is necessary for the larger
community to take such proposals seriously?
4. I agree it would be sad, if that was the only motivation for the
community to think about it.
5. There was quite significant involvement by the community, many useful
comments and suggestions. It's more than enough for the WGs to evaluate,
and update the recommendations. Significantly more input at until the next
iteration would be overwhelming, and impossible to process.

Aron
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-24 Thread Dennis During
Every participant in an iterative multi-party process likes to be the
last.  In a certain sense the larger community will be the last. They can
opt to abandon the movement.  But for those volunteers who will be loyal to
the movement, it is the far-away Board has the last look and final say-so.
Given the difficulty of actually getting any significant level of response
from the larger community, especially of mere content contributors, it
would be nice - and wise IMO - to allow for the larger community to have a
long look at finished draft proposals.

The sad fact is that the only way the larger community would be likely to
take such proposals seriously would be if there were an imminent deadline.
Unfortunately, it is hard to take the imminent deadline seriously given the
absence of substance in some areas.  Thus a chance has been missed to get
substantial involvement from the broader community.

I wonder why some of the working groups have so little to show.  Is there
substantial disagreement among members?

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 2:00 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy
> process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community
> input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance
> for the community to give substantial input is very limited.
> In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not
> have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest
> time in reading texts that are not ready.
> The experience is very frustrating.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Hi Ziko and all,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a
> response
> > to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
> > well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after
> which
> > > > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement
> input
> > > as
> > > >
> > >
> > > I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within
> that
> > > timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental
> to
> > > these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
> > environment
> > > this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
> > > wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next
> iteration,
> > > and keep the conversation alive.
> > > I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
> > > this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
> > > popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
> > > feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
> > >
> > > Aron
> > >
> > >
> > > ᐧ
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-24 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy
process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community
input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance
for the community to give substantial input is very limited.
In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not
have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest
time in reading texts that are not ready.
The experience is very frustrating.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:

> Hi Ziko and all,
>
> Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response
> to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
> well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> > > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input
> > as
> > >
> >
> > I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
> > timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to
> > these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
> environment
> > this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
> > wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration,
> > and keep the conversation alive.
> > I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
> > this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
> > popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
> > feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
> >
> > Aron
> >
> >
> > ᐧ
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-22 Thread Nicole Ebber
Hi Ziko and all,

Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response
to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
well. Let me know if you need further clarification.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html

Best wishes,
Nicole

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning  wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
>
> > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input
> as
> >
>
> I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
> timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to
> these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile environment
> this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
> wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration,
> and keep the conversation alive.
> I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
> this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
> popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
> feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
>
> Aron
>
>
> ᐧ
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-18 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as
>

I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to
these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile environment
this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration,
and keep the conversation alive.
I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.

Aron


ᐧ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-18 Thread Ad Huikeshoven
To be more precise: on September 15 Working Group members, the Board of
Trustees Members, and all Chiefs of the Foundation will convene in Tunis
for a sprint to discuss these materials.

The working groups will have a lot of work to do to come up with something
that convinces decision makers to embrace recommendation to change anything
from the current status quo.

From participants at Wikimania I sense buy in for a number of more or less
radical changes. The working groups have to be very clear and very specific
which changes they want and why.

Regards,

Ad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-17 Thread Jeff Hawke
Aron

The current timeline allows for nothing like that.  According to the META
page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations=19291903>
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as
well as external advice and research. The final recommendations will be
shared publicly in November, and discussions around implementation will
begin in early 2020. "



Jeff


On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:20 PM Aron Manning  wrote:

> I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
> drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
> feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
> Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
> not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
> way around.
>
> The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
> community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
> movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
> detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
> some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely
> necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about
> it.
>
> Aron
> ᐧ
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta.
> > You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people
> don’t
> > know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough.
> > There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for
> > clarification too.  Some get a response quite quickly, others get very
> > little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within
> a
> > reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another
> > problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people
> wo
> > feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a
> > small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some
> really
> > bad stuff getting passed.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> > Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> > reconsider!
> >
> > Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a
> kind
> > of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
> >
> > > I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> > > items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> > > differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> > > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> > > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
> > questions
> > > are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in
> which
> > > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy:
> please
> > > reconsider!
> > >
> > > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030,
> for
> > > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
> > the
> > > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
> > on
> > > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
> > in
> > > October.
> > > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> > > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> > > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> > > implem

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-17 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 09:00, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or
> semi-official capacity?
>

I don't think it would make sense, if a WG member would write this. I speak
my opinion as an editor. To be clear: I meant I assume the WMF will
continue working on these drafts, incorporating the feedback, and proposing
new versions.

Aron
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Southwood
Aron, 
Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or semi-official 
capacity?
If so could you indicate in what capacity, so we have some idea of where this 
is coming from.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 16 August 2019 21:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
way around.

The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely
necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about
it.

Aron
ᐧ

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta.
> You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t
> know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough.
> There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for
> clarification too.  Some get a response quite quickly, others get very
> little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a
> reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another
> problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo
> feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a
> small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really
> bad stuff getting passed.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
> of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> > items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> > differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
> questions
> > are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> > reconsider!
> >
> > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
> the
> > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
> on
> > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
> in
> > October.
> > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> > implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> > hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
> of
> > the community who involved itself on the process).
> >
> > I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> > schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> > that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
> à(s)
> > 14:48:
> >
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-16 Thread Aron Manning
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
way around.

The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely
necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about
it.

Aron
ᐧ

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta.
> You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t
> know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough.
> There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for
> clarification too.  Some get a response quite quickly, others get very
> little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a
> reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another
> problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo
> feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a
> small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really
> bad stuff getting passed.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
> of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> > items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> > differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
> questions
> > are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> > reconsider!
> >
> > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
> the
> > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
> on
> > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
> in
> > October.
> > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> > implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> > hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
> of
> > the community who involved itself on the process).
> >
> > I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> > schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> > that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
> à(s)
> > 14:48:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups
> have
> > > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
> > future
> > > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
> > the
> > > working groups.
> > >
> > > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-16 Thread Peter Southwood
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You 
don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t know 
what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems 
to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too.  Some 
get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones 
that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet 
snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same 
time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large 
proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do 
need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ziko van Dijk
Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:

> I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions
> are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
> published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
> this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
> October.
> Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
> the community who involved itself on the process).
>
> I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
> 14:48:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
> future
> > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
> the
> > working groups.
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> > feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> > ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> > the recommendations.
> >
> > Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> > documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
> much
> > more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
> Wikimeda
> > volunteers.
> >
> > There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> > sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> > back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
> least
> > at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
> >
> > The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
> through.
> > There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> > that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
> statement
> > that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> > content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-16 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:

> I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions
> are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
> published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
> this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
> October.
> Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
> the community who involved itself on the process).
>
> I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
> 14:48:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
> future
> > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
> the
> > working groups.
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> > feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> > ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> > the recommendations.
> >
> > Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> > documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
> much
> > more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
> Wikimeda
> > volunteers.
> >
> > There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> > sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> > back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
> least
> > at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
> >
> > The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
> through.
> > There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> > that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
> statement
> > that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> > content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> > years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
> content
> > organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
> change?
> >
> > And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> > about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
> change
> > has negative connotations to some members of the community."
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
> >
> > I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> > before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
> giving
> > a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
> very
> > same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
> >
> > This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-15 Thread Peter Southwood
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items 
can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why 
not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open 
for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant 
questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered  it may be 
necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a 
waste of time and effort). 
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
October.
Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
the community who involved itself on the process).

I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
that draft to be discussed and properly finished.

Best,
Paulo

Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
14:48:

> Hello,
>
> Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
> of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
> working groups.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> the recommendations.
>
> Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
> more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
> volunteers.
>
> There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
> at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
>
> The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
> There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
> that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
> organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
>
> And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
> has negative connotations to some members of the community."
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
> a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
> same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
>
> This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
> me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
> feels this frustration.
>
> Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
> these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
> working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
> Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-15 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
October.
Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
the community who involved itself on the process).

I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
that draft to be discussed and properly finished.

Best,
Paulo

Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
14:48:

> Hello,
>
> Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
> of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
> working groups.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> the recommendations.
>
> Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
> more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
> volunteers.
>
> There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
> at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
>
> The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
> There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
> that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
> organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
>
> And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
> has negative connotations to some members of the community."
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
> a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
> same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
>
> This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
> me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
> feels this frustration.
>
> Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
> these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
> working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
> Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
> again.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-15 Thread Philip Kopetzky
Hey Ziko,

I'm sure you yourself can point out the recommendations that are based on a
year of deliberations and research than those that are not. It is pretty
hard work to gather all the feedback from the last year as well as analyse,
weight and incorporate it into the final recommendations. This work is
still taking place and won't be finished until mid-September, so right now
it would be great to get your view on the goals for 2030 in the
recommendations rather than pick apart one-liners (and those views a can
also be more than just one's own opinion, if you're so inclined).

Best,
Philip



On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:48, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
> of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
> working groups.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> the recommendations.
>
> Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
> more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
> volunteers.
>
> There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
> at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
>
> The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
> There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
> that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
> organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
>
> And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
> has negative connotations to some members of the community."
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
> a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
> same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
>
> This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
> me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
> feels this frustration.
>
> Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
> these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
> working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
> Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
> again.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-14 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
working groups.

If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
the recommendations.

Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
volunteers.

There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".

The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?

And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9

I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).

This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
feels this frustration.

Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
again.

Kind regards
Ziko
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,