Perhaps this need for use cases was addressed in the "report" which the
staff commissioned from consultants over a year ago but which was never
shared with the community at large – assuming that it was ever produced.


On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Isarra Yos <> wrote:

> On 26/02/17 18:21, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples.
>> I'd like to see links to Gerrit changesets and Phabricator tasks where
>> this new policy and its committee would help. If you want to make claims
>> of serious unacknowledged problems, substantiate them with evidence. This
>> is exactly the same burden of proof you would expect from anyone else.
>> MZMcBride
> I've asked for this before, but got nothing but hypotheticals. It's hard
> to weigh in on a document that does not cite specific examples, with
> context, of what it seeks to address. When designing anything - processes,
> software, architecture - you need to know your use cases in order to
> properly address them. We spent months researching what the users were
> actually doing, and the problems they were running into, before we started
> making anything for WikiProject X. For every decision we made, we can point
> to examples on-wiki of the trends that led us to this; or the software
> limitations; or the fact that it actually was kind of arbitrary, and that
> if any actual reasons to change it are provided, this can totally be done.
> And this Code of Conduct is much bigger, in both scope and likely impact,
> than WikiProject X.
> -I
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to