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
>> 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>

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to