I've started a new thread to step back from the long thread, and look forward towards something that I think we need - or might want - to do.
This is not at all the first time of clumsy handling, or conflicting actions and perceptions, leading to tensions and drama between the editing community and foundation. There are some common themes. As noted by Sue and others, WMF and the community may have different low-level priorities and motivators. They have a different structure and legal context. There are different scales and kinds of consequences possible. Even when contemplating the same issue, the processes and input of both may be equally valid but diverge a lot. Last, even when a WMF matter is valid or chosen diligently, the communication aspects of transparency, consultation, and mutual respect can be missing, and it may be perceived as very or grossly inappropriate or a breach of unspoken etiquette. *This has added heat and fuel to many incidents over many years. Not just one or a few matters. It benefits nobody that we give no guidance to reduce or (if able) avoid these confrontations in future, and no one part of the wider Community can draft such guidance in isolation. *I think it's time we addressed it head on. I would like to call on WMF and the Community (in its broadest sense) to set out terms, and organize, a formal consultation, to answer these questions: 1. *What expectations and needs do the Volunteer Community, Chapters, and WMF, have of each other?* 2. *What guidance and guidelines can we agree upon*, that can be given to new staff at WMF/Chapters, or referenced by anyone in the Movement, to understand how to recognize and deal with situations that may impinge on other parts of the Movement? 3. *In particular, what best practices or necessities can be outlined for someone* wishing to broach, consult, and progress an proposal or action that may be seen as "unexpected" by a subset of the Movement, and, if there must for operational/legal purposes be a "done deal", how do we collectively concur these (hopefully uncommon) cases should be approved, handled, and discussed/communicated? I would like the outcome to be a *living document*, like any other major policy, that can be used to *understand how to reduce friction*, and *"best practices" and understandings of viewpoints, within different parts of our Movement*, and thereby ensuring everyone involved is more aware of these aspects and of "best practices" in working with other areas and "subgroups" in our Community. I'd note that policies often contain nuances and don't always imply a single fixed answer exists. Their aim is to reduce the areas of discord, even if it can't be eliminated, by outlining what is mandatory, or preferred, or good practice, or unacceptable, or may be important to know. I see the result as being a policy of that kind. I'd note also that although mainly considering WMF and the volunteer community, it's worth addressing broadly, because other movement "subgroups" can also have internal decisions capable of this kind of problem. For example, and in principle, OTRS administrators might one day make a unilateral decision to limit or alter some aspect of how OTRS and its team operates, a chapter might make a clumsy or ill-conceived choice affecting WMF or editorial aspects in a given country, or a computer/data/system administrator may make a decision about computer matters, as well. There may be useful guidance applicable to others in the movement. FT2 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
