I don't think the WMF is "trying to exempt itself from its own creation",
it is simpy giving its own staff a privileged position within it.  Anyone
who makes a complaint against a member of staff will have the privacy of
their complaint breached by having details sent to the WMF with its
millions of dollars and its staff of lawyers whose remit is to protect the
Foundation, not the volunteers.  That creates a two-tier system within the
technical community and is bound to have a chilling effect on complaints of
that kind.

Nonetheless, the question I think we should focus on is, should the code as
written be put to the Community for approval and, if so, how?


On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 5:45 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> >This is a circular and illogical argument.  Just because
> >someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does
> >not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take.
> >And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo-
> >ple to keep pushing the cart to honour the navigator's dedi-
> >cation is self-destructive.
> This is basically the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_fallacy>.
> This also can partially explain many of the software development-related
> disputes we've seen with the Wikimedia Foundation. Once a bunch of time,
> energy, and other resources are devoted to a particular software project,
> it becomes a lot more difficult to give it up, even if it's doomed.
> Leila Zia wrote:
> >​Matthew used English Wikipedia as one example to say that the statement
> >"This is always the case." is not correct.​ Using English Wikipedia as an
> >example to negate that statement is not in contradiction with what Matthew
> >said to you on mediawiki.org.
> Sure, but that wasn't the contradiction (or hypocrisy) I was discussing.
> In one case, Matthew is relying on outside behavior and accepted practices
> on other Wikimedia wikis (re: meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, etc.). In the
> other case, Matthew is saying outside policies and practices are
> irrelevant as those policies are local to that wiki. You both are quite
> smart enough to see what's happening here.
> Vi to wrote:
> >I think methodological objections shouldn't prevail over substantial
> >objections.
> >I can agree most of consensus in CoC draft came from WMF
> >staffers/contractors, but:
> >*no one was prevented from weighing-in
> >*lists were filled with invitations to weigh-in
> >*I think most of us didn't comment just because they agree with the
> >overall meaning of the draft.
> >IMHO most of criticism doesn't actually target the draft but rather
> >increasing influence of WMF in various sectors traditionally
> >community-driven or unregulated. I'm not commenting nor this influence nor
> >the objections but I think CoC is just a symbol of another issue.
> I'll try to summarize the latest criticisms and I'll copy them to the talk
> page as well, for posterity.
> Re: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft
> In the most cynical outlook, this is a Wikimedia Foundation-imposed
> policy. The revision history of the page and activity on the related
> Phabricator tasks make this pretty clear:
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P4985> and
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908>.
> The draft text regarding initial committee membership reads: "The first
> Committee will be chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation's Technical
> Collaboration team."
> As I pointed out to Pine, there's been a decent amount of discussion
> regarding whether this proposed committee or this entire document can even
> apply to Wikimedia Foundation staff. The Wikimedia Foundation Human
> Resources and Legal teams have weighed in and seem to have attempted to
> carve out an exemption for employees, since they're (probably rightfully)
> concerned that this proposed policy and its committee will create HR and
> Legal headaches.
> When asked about specific examples that this code of conduct is attempting
> to address, there has been extreme evasiveness. Problematic behavior in
> technical spaces (for example, spammers in IRC channels, Phabricator, and
> Gerrit) are typically quickly resolved. What is this committee intending
> to work on, exactly? Getting a simple answer to that question has been
> nearly impossible.
> And the previous explicit agreements to have a final vote on the document
> have now been changed by one side. Instead of having a final vote, Matthew
> and the rest of the people pushing this document forward are trying to
> claim the ability to use per-section consensus as a basis for overall
> consensus, even though they specifically told people there would be a
> final vote and people supported specific sections with this understanding.
> Yes, it is a cynical outlook to be sure, but if you examine what's
> happening here, this a proposed policy from Wikimedia Foundation staffers
> that puts the Wikimedia Foundation in charge of creating a code of conduct
> committee. That's already a huge red flag. Add to it that the Wikimedia
> Foundation is trying to exempt itself from its own creation, can't cite
> what specific problems this new policy/committee is intended to solve, and
> has now reneged on previous agreements to hold a final vote, presumably
> because there's a concern that a final vote would result in rejection of
> this policy. Bleh.
> MZMcBride
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to