Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
community needs to get involved.  It actually seems to me that the
foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple of
years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short term.

I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement, it
seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like you're
doing something about a problem, without actually taking responsibility, or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first
place.  If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is?  I do hope that the Community
department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.

On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will share
their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users".
I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be good
if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an event
where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic individuals
might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.


On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin <> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <> 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
> > 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:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to