I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly.
Sam. On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected]>wrote: > On 8/11/2012 8:05 PM, Mono wrote: > >> Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical? >> >> Some options: >> >> A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address. >> B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address. >> C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing. >> D) Move content to Meta and leave it open. >> E) Do nothing. >> > I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a > couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I > think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to > say nothing of interim updates to the current plan). > > I wouldn't mind having the content migrate to Meta. I know there were > well-considered reasons why the strategy wiki and various others were > created as separate sites, but I'd like to see us do that more as dedicated > spaces within a common site. > > As to marking content as historical, I'm not sure that's really the best > use of the material. Many strategic questions do not really go away, and > they can and should be revisited as part of the next planning process. I > would favor refactoring and merging, it should become a living space again, > not an archive. > > --Michael Snow > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
