On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I
disagree
with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of
great
talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as
after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive
innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore
things
that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to
resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the
foundation
itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying
ways
to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter
debacle
that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more
convinced
than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should
actually
be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just
through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also
creating a
conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm
afraid
we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dan,
whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see
the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate?
I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your
point (probably not).
Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
