Top posting. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for one. Seriously, if they solve a case with 2 emails or 200, I couldn't care less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600 emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first place, if I am not mistaken.
Could the interested people, as was asked, draw up a few "report guidelines" on meta as to what they would like to see, and could the commission can take just a bit of its time to see what's feasible/reasonable and what is not (as per Mike's proposal), and agree to issue a report at given intervals so that the black box is maybe not so black? It seems that something along the lines of X cases, Y accepted, Z rejected (reason for them being rejected if possible), solved succesfully/not solved and time to solve a case (date it came in, date it was solved) would probably answer most of the concerns expressed here. If you know you have to do it in advance, then the task should be bearable. Let's look forward, and not dwell on what we didn't think about before. Cheers, Delphine On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer <tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2012/4/23 Mike Christie <coldchr...@gmail.com>: >> This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would >> like a clarification. What's the decision-making process within the >> WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a >> WMF process)? I understand how processes are implemented (or not), >> and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet >> understand the relationship between community requests (or requests >> from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks. What >> are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as >> this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's >> appropriate? Is it part of their job description to communicate via >> lists such as this, and justify their decisions? > > Mike, the ombudsman commission does not consist of WMF employees. We > are just volunteers. We don't get paid for what we are doing. ;) If I > got paid for it, I would happily search all my emails and create all > sorts of statistics the community wants to have, but I didn't > volunteer for being a statistican or doing anything related to that, > so I just won't do it. :) Explaining how we process requests is > something else, and I did already explain that process. > > Th. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l