Sarah Sharp has an excellent and relevant post on what makes for an active
and welcoming open source community:
http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/06/what-makes-a-good-community/
I would like the Wikimedia technical community to get to Level 0, and this
policy is one tool we can use to get there.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 08/22/2015 10:52 PM, Risker wrote:
Perhaps more importantlywho were the local contacts at Hackathon 2015?
I can't even dig that one up in the event documentation.
On 28 August 2015 at 06:05, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 08/22/2015 10:52 PM, Risker wrote:
Perhaps more importantlywho were the local contacts at Hackathon
2015?
I can't even dig that one
Hi,
As is unwanted attention, even if verbal, and sustained disruption,
interruption, which would be applicable if people are continually
interrupting your talk on purpose (similar to the background
conversation note, though not the same thing).
Right - I got the sense from the original
On 08/22/2015 10:52 PM, Risker wrote:
Perhaps more importantlywho were the local contacts at Hackathon 2015?
I can't even dig that one up in the event documentation.
A policy that exists but has no clear or visible support isn't worth the
bytes it's written with.
This is a good point.
On 08/24/2015 02:44 PM, Brian Wolff wrote:
The I remembered having my butt pinched, my breasts 'accidentally
touched' part would seem to fall under the proposed policy.
As is unwanted attention, even if verbal, and sustained disruption,
interruption, which would be applicable if people are
Le 23/08/2015 01:09, Brian Wolff a écrit :
On 8/22/15, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, MediaWiki is intentionally GPLv2, not GPLv3.
MediaWiki is not intentionally GPLv2. It merely is v2 now and the
On 8/26/15, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/08/2015 01:09, Brian Wolff a écrit :
On 8/22/15, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, MediaWiki is intentionally GPLv2, not GPLv3.
MediaWiki is
Thanks for sharing this, Risker. If I were a casual contributor, I'm not
sure that I would attend either--not because I'd expect that Wikimedia
conferences/hackathons would necessarily be worse than other tech
conferences, but because I'd have no reason to expect them to be better.
Same with our
Hi,
I remembered how readily the guys assumed that any woman there was there
for more than just networking and learning. I remembered having my butt
pinched, my breasts accidentally touched, my questions ignored or laughed
at. I remember how the buzz of background conversation is always much
On 8/24/15, Yaron Koren ya...@wikiworks.com wrote:
Hi,
I remembered how readily the guys assumed that any woman there was there
for more than just networking and learning. I remembered having my butt
pinched, my breasts accidentally touched, my questions ignored or
laughed
at. I remember
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
bad things
are happening, why don't we do X is to literally google why isn't
[the obviously simple thing I thought of] a good idea?, and see what
smart people have already written
Ironically, I tried to be devil's
On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Admins? And who are those? Please build a listing of every admin for
every possible technical venue relating to Wikimedia.
While you're at it, we're going to need them to have a shared hivemind
so enforcement is consistent between venues.
No, because that would be gratuitous and unnecessary language that
contributes nothing to the discussion. But if you meant: really,
you're going to suggest, optionally, that people do research before
hitting send and consider the possibility that this is not their area
of expertise, where it is
On 8/23/15, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, because that would be gratuitous and unnecessary language that
contributes nothing to the discussion. But if you meant: really,
you're going to suggest, optionally, that people do research before
hitting send and consider the possibility
On 23 August 2015 at 03:52, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps more importantlywho were the local contacts at Hackathon 2015?
I can't even dig that one up in the event documentation.
A policy that exists but has no clear or visible support isn't worth the
bytes it's written with.
think admins can enforce if necessary.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:30:40 -0600
From: bawo...@gmail.com
To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, thanks for this find.
THIS is why the Code
Why we need a committee?
I think admins can enforce if necessary.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:30:40 -0600
From: bawo...@gmail.com
To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Engineering] Code of conduct
On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, thanks
On 8/22/15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, thanks for this find.
THIS is why the Code of Conduct is needed. I recognized myself in this
blog. I remembered avoiding any aspect of socialization at conferences I
had to attend for work, and simply didn't even consider attending
Brian Wolff wrote:
Well maybe they aren't explaining very good. This is a long thread, I
think I've read most of it, its possible I've forgotten something, but
- I don't really recall anyone addressing the topic of why a committee
is better than the combined group of admins (For the record, I
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, MediaWiki is intentionally GPLv2, not GPLv3.
MediaWiki is not intentionally GPLv2. It merely is v2 now and the community
cannot come to a consensus on whether to change it, thus it remains in its
current
(anonymous) wrote:
[...]
So yeah...you need a code of conduct. Because if I was even 15 years
younger, I'd never go to a Wikimedia conference.
Wikimedia conferences are already governed by the so-called
Friendly space policy
(cf. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy).
On 8/22/15, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, MediaWiki is intentionally GPLv2, not GPLv3.
MediaWiki is not intentionally GPLv2. It merely is v2 now and the community
cannot come to a consensus on
On 21 August 2015 at 21:11, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 16 August 2015 at 04:06, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
that is an impressive list, amir. WMF hast its terms of use:
David, thanks for this find.
THIS is why the Code of Conduct is needed. I recognized myself in this
blog. I remembered avoiding any aspect of socialization at conferences I
had to attend for work, and simply didn't even consider attending
conferences for any other purpose. I remembered how
brion,
civility _is_ enforced already today by the terms of use, nothing new
necessary.
It really isn't except for extreme cases. There's a difference between
a policy enforced from above saying you're not allowed to do various
things, most of which would probably land you in jail, and a
I saw this today, I wonder if it's relevant to the thread:
http://www.perpendicularangel.com/2015/08/no-i-dont-trust-your-conference-without-a-code-of-conduct/
Of course we're talking about stuff beyond conferences, but it still
applies I'd think.
- d.
On 22 August 2015 at 22:36, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
(anonymous) wrote:
[...]
So yeah...you need a code of conduct. Because if I was even 15 years
younger, I'd never go to a Wikimedia conference.
Wikimedia conferences are already governed by the so-called
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 16 August 2015 at 04:06, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
that is an impressive list, amir. WMF hast its terms of use:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use (TOU) . admitted, an
that is an impressive list, amir. WMF hast its terms of use:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use (TOU) . admitted, an
illegible monster compared to the simple statements below, like
contributor covenant. i honestly do not think that an open movement
like the wikimedia movement should
On 16 August 2015 at 04:06, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
that is an impressive list, amir. WMF hast its terms of use:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use (TOU) . admitted, an
illegible monster compared to the simple statements below, like
contributor covenant. i
I was trying to adapt such policy for technical spaces for two years, It is
serious issue and it happens a lot, If it didn't happen to you, that
doesn't mean it's not happening or doesn't worth being addressed. I'm
working to adapt a CoC for pywikibot if this one fails [1]
If you think it needs
On 08/12/2015 06:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 August 2015 at 23:00, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
This does need to be sorted out ahead of time.
See my proposal at
On 14 August 2015 at 22:45, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 08/12/2015 06:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 August 2015 at 23:00, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
This does need to be sorted out ahead of time.
See my
David's example is, unfortunately, probably a good one to keep in mind.
Regarding enforcement, WMF's traditional approach is that staff discipline
is handled on a track that's independent of community enforcement actions,
and the WMF in-house actions are almost entirely opaque which is in
On 08/12/2015 05:13 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
While you're right we don't have a binding policy as of yet, I don't
think this should be conflated with us having no rules.
We do have some social conventions, and sometimes these work, but they
don't always.
There have been instances (on both
On 12 August 2015 at 23:00, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
This does need to be sorted out ahead of time. Here's today's horrible example:
http://kovalc.in/2015/08/12/harassers.html
- d.
___
On 8/10/15, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 08/10/2015 07:10 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. We already have:
As you know, none of those are binding policies that apply to all
Wikimedia technical spaces.
*
Just to clarify a few points: I support the concept of having a global
friendly spaces policy. I'm ambivalent and reluctant when it comes to the
particular proposal that we're discussing here. And I think that we should
keep in mind that any policy's usefulness for social change will be much
I'm not sure why we would be using enwiki as a model for civility, or
civility enforcement ;). As said in my email, there are a lot of
examples being brought up on the talk page of tech-specific or
tech-centric codes of conduct. I'd suggest we avoid fragmenting the
discussion and move it there;
For the record: I'm very happy to know that we're drafting an explicit code
of conduct.
Yes, Matt may not have expressed himself completely clearly in his initial
email. Yes, an ironclad, fully developed, pan-Wikimedia code would be even
better. Yes, developing and enforcing any new policy
Cool; drop it on the talkpage. The fact that enwiki's policy is
consensus-based, of course, does not mean it's a good policy; it can
just mean that it's mealy-mouthed enough to not annoy the majority
enough to fight for a change. And that's very different. The issues
we've seen on that project
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Brandon Black bbl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I think enwiki has the benefit of having the widest reach and most
extensive development of its policies under a consensus model.
Note that the
On 11 August 2015 at 00:10, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I'm curious which comparable organizations you're referring to.
Pretty much any open source project with an organisation. You've
already been referred to e.g. the Geek Feminism wiki on this point, so
if you haven't read up there
David Gerard wrote:
On 10 August 2015 at 14:18, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A proposed code of conduct like this is quite expensive to implement and
enforce/maintain. I personally don't get the sense from reading your
replies that you acknowledge the high cost.
In practice, EVERYONE
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I think enwiki has the benefit of having the widest reach and most
extensive development of its policies under a consensus model.
Note that the consensus of current active community members is
inherently a poor guideline
On 08/09/2015 11:28 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
But, while I can only give myself as an example, that's not how I think
it reads to someone who was not already familiar with the situation --
my first impression on reading those words was the same as Tyler's. It
might help if Matt followed up with
On 08/10/2015 03:40 AM, Pine W wrote:
I'm putting on my admin and IRC channel op hats, and trying to figure out
how this proposal makes those jobs easier or different. I think there are
reasonable ideas in this proposal, but the second level escalation path
should follow inside of the
On 08/10/2015 07:10 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. We already have:
As you know, none of those are binding policies that apply to all
Wikimedia technical spaces.
* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy
This only applies to
On 08/10/2015 12:09 PM, Pine W wrote:
Just to clarify a few points: I support the concept of having a global
friendly spaces policy. I'm ambivalent and reluctant when it comes to the
particular proposal that we're discussing here. And I think that we should
keep in mind that any policy's
On 08/10/2015 03:34 PM, Pine W wrote:
On the other hand, I think that the enwiki example shows that more rules don't
necessarily lead to friendlier communities.
In my opinion, the problem with enwiki is that important policies like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility and
Hmm. I think enwiki has the benefit of having the widest reach and most
extensive development of its policies under a consensus model. On the other
hand, I think that the enwiki example shows that more rules don't
necessarily lead to friendlier communities. As I said earlier, I think that
our goal
David Gerard wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 00:10, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I'm curious which comparable organizations you're referring to.
Pretty much any open source project with an organisation. You've
already been referred to e.g. the Geek Feminism wiki on this point, so
if you
On 6 August 2015 at 17:17, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We're in the process of developing a code of conduct for technical
spaces. This will be binding, and apply to all Wikimedia-related technical
spaces (including but not limited to MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit,
I'm putting on my admin and IRC channel op hats, and trying to figure out
how this proposal makes those jobs easier or different. I think there are
reasonable ideas in this proposal, but the second level escalation path
should follow inside of the appropriate local scopes.
I'm cautious about
Oliver Keyes wrote:
But we /can't/ have one for Wikimedia, you see, because we need to
discuss it more. Yes, it's nice that you've come up with a policy,
based on those other policies that have helped in those similar areas
- but we need to discuss it more and justify why it should exist.
There's
On 10 August 2015 at 14:18, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A proposed code of conduct like this is quite expensive to implement and
enforce/maintain. I personally don't get the sense from reading your
replies that you acknowledge the high cost.
In practice, EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S ADOPTED
On 10 August 2015 at 09:18, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
But we /can't/ have one for Wikimedia, you see, because we need to
discuss it more. Yes, it's nice that you've come up with a policy,
based on those other policies that have helped in those similar areas
- but we
On 10 August 2015 at 03:40, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm putting on my admin and IRC channel op hats, and trying to figure out
how this proposal makes those jobs easier or different. I think there are
reasonable ideas in this proposal, but the second level escalation path
should
No, stop and re-read Matt's email assuming good faith. It doesn't come off
with the wrong connotation or It sounds more like you've already decided
to do this.
***We're in the process of*** developing a code of conduct...
...***This will be*** binding, and apply to all Wikimedia-related
On 09/08/15 15:50, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez wrote:
No, stop and re-read Matt's email assuming good faith. It doesn't come off
with the wrong connotation or It sounds more like you've already decided
to do this.
***We're in the process of*** developing a code of conduct...
...***This
Great news! This is long overdue, and I welcome continued discussion in
this area.
-- brion
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
We're in the process of developing a code of conduct for technical
spaces. This will be binding, and apply to all
Yes, civility is important and should be enforced.
-- brion
On Sunday, August 9, 2015, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
What kind of standards for behavior we want and think are acceptable is a
core concern of everyone in the Wikimedia and MediaWiki technical
+1.
At some point we seem to have got the idea that civility enforcement
was a Bad Thing - that we lost out when it was enforced. That we were
no longer allowed to say whatever the heck we want and this was Bad.
The problem is that even absent civility enforcement, there have
always been
Isn't this the point of this email chain and talk page, though? To open
this up to the broader community for development...?
The idea was picked up and developed in wikimania and is now being proposed
as a starting point for development by the tech community on a broader
scale. Seems to allow for
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Moriel Schottlender mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
An I missing something?
When an employee of the WMF starts a new topic on the mailing list with the
words we are and binding, it comes off with the wrong connotation,
especially considering the we was clarified to mean
Is there a [[Wikitech:LAME]] somewhere to list metatalks about the talk?
:-)
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 8/7/15, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 08/07/2015 11:43 AM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Thank you for drafting this up, Matt. Who's we here?
In that case, we meant the Wikimedia technical community (in
collaboration with other related groups at WMF). Several people have
Yeah, I'm with Brian. I consider myself a member of the Wikimedia
technical community and I did not yet get an opportunity to participate in
the process of developing this document (which appears to have been mostly
offline at Wikimania).
--
Bartosz Dziewoński
The idea for this was presented at Wikimania where it received a very
positive reception. Most of what I was going to say about it has already
been covered by Frances, so I'll just add that I support it as well.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was also at the Wikimania session where we worked on this draft. I
strongly support this effort. Best practices for codes of conduct include
clearly defined consequences for breaches, as well as named behaviors that
are unacceptable (as not everyone shares the same common sense, and
people
On why is this necessary:
Earlier this year, Nick Coghlan wrote an excellent blog post on why he
considers fighting abuse in open source communities (Linux, in particular)
key to getting the best contributions and making his projects the strongest
they can be. A quote:
Instead, what I do care
I'm not big on rules but I am big on culture. The Internet causes an
unusual phenomenon in people to miscommunicate and in turn say things they
don't really mean because they feel attacked. I genuinely hope efforts like
this, though only a single page of decency in print form, will be taken to
On 08/07/2015 03:49 PM, Frances Hocutt wrote:
Wikitech is not LKML, but a new contributor isn't going to know that
(and still, they can look through the archives and find personal
attacks!). A CoC is one way that we communicate that that's not how we
act, and that's not how we tolerate other
On 08/07/2015 11:43 AM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Thank you for drafting this up, Matt. Who's we here?
In that case, we meant the Wikimedia technical community (in
collaboration with other related groups at WMF). Several people have
already participated, but we need more. See e.g.
75 matches
Mail list logo
