You are right that the harassment issue needs more than gestures or
unenforceable guidelines, and Community Engagement is working with
community members on new ideas and approaches.  The Friendly Spaces
expectations are a beginning, not an end point; they are a first step to
get the community talking about ways to change the status quo.  They offer
some structure to build around in developing new social
norms/expectations.  But I agree that this must be part of a larger effort
and conversation to have any real positive effect.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Craig Franklin <>

> 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 <> 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
> > 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:
> >
> >
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

Patrick Earley
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to