How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
Sent from my iPhone James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x6716 > On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it > imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for office > actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general > moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would > allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me that > the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably > more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after community > consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If > there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that > govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board > should consider creating one. > > > Pine > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces on >>> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout plan >>> doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to >>> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an >> open >>> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is >>> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further >>> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and >> (2) >>> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the >> WMF >>> Board may eventually ratify. >> >> >> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate) here. >> The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on meta >> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose >> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on anyone >> participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a commenter or >> reviewer). >> >> Kirill >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimediaemail@example.com >> 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 > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>