On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > > But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or > controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our > standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns > out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate > approach then.
Naturally the process should be public and inclusive. I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis. Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings, suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from people who are not active wiki users. A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a good idea for any time-sensitive project. We don't want to appoint FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as soon as possible. As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here, even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic. SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
