Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence.
When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF > staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the > Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki > that is governed by community leadership and community content moderation, > and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. > Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, > then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to see > more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF to > have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on that > committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had > with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space policy > is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy > goes through an RfC. > > Thanks, > Pine > On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Cheers, > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>