On 14 Aug 2014 14:50, "David Cuenca" <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length > > about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released > > and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not > > adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to > > do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always > > someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault. > > > > Talking in several venues about what one is doing cannot be considered > consensus building. Actually it is the opposite, because it is an extrinsic > change and as such it cannot be appropriated by any ad-hoc community. Even > worse, it gives developers the wrong impression that they are working under > general approval, when actually they might be communicating only with the > people that normally would accept their project, but not the ones that > normally would reject it.
how should this be solved? To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect that their work won't be overruled. That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority) > Cheers, > Micru > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
