I agree that there have been some positive developments in the
WMF-community relationship over the last year or so. I think that we hit a
rough patch in the past few months, and I'm hoping that it is behind us.
Figuring out how to gauge community sentiment is a really hard problem.
RfCs and email lists both have issues with the limitations of
self-selection, and even as a regular contributor to this list I think that
consensus on this list among 10 people in a thread is not the same as
consensus among 100 people in an RfC or the tens of thousands in the entire
Wikiverse. I like the idea of surveys with random samples, and ENWP has
tried to get broader representation of people in RfCs using bot invitations
to participate. Broad surveys and dialogues are time-consuming and the
methodology can be challenging. I'm not sure what to suggest to improve our
methods of gauging community sentiment. I think that all of our tools have
limitations. I'd be glad to discuss that in a separate thread if you're
interested; I think of this as being both a research challenge and a
governance challenge .
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se
> We have 61000 editors that made more the 5 edits last month and 8800
> making more then 100 edits. Last election to the Board attracted 5500
> voters. These figures gives a magnitude of the numbers in the community.
> The number of active on this list are around 50-100, and normal
> participations in meta discussion (except when it was for Visual editor)
> are at best 100-200.
> I truly believe we should not be content to say these 100-200 are the
> community or spokespersons for the community. And I admire the approach
> being made by WMF in the strategy project, to actively try to reach out to
> a broader audience then these 100-200
> So I believe her has always been an issue of the dialogue between the
> community and WMF, both referring to who is the community and the dialogue
> in itself. But I do see that the approach being taken by WMF now and lately
> does a lot to resolve this issue and and is worth both praise and support
> And I do would like to see less of "We the community" by people on this
> Den 2017-03-06 kl. 20:07, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
>> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
>>> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
>>> their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick
>>> the mud as it stifles initiative?
>>> A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware. We need to
>> establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
>> Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
>> strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
>> deliver quality products that support the mission effectively. Do you
>> think we have those already? Or do you think we can do without them?
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com