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
> > > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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