Hi Gerard,

The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally
willing to be the initiator of one.  Likewise, board resolutions happen
freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a
friendly space policy.

If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for
saying that a document that governs community  behavior is actually a
policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval
process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies
for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and
consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content
and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are
especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think
that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can
make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers
should be the Board and/or the community.

There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be
great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and
make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a
final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is
enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the
community.

Pine
On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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