Just for the record: the reason I asked for the number of emails is not because of an exact number: but for people to understand how much of a workload it is (and appreciate it!). For that number I only care about the order of magnitude in the end - the important numbers are indeed the number of cases etc.
Thank you very much Thomas Goldammer for your effort of providing this data. I appreciate your help in answering the questions. Lodewijk El 23 de abril de 2012 15:46, Delphine Ménard <notafi...@gmail.com>escribió: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l