Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>: > I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these > items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may > differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions > are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please > reconsider! > > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in > October. > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to > implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of > hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of > the community who involved itself on the process). > > I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your > schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for > that draft to be discussed and properly finished. > > Best, > Paulo > > Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) > 14:48: > > > Hello, > > > > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have > > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the > future > > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of > the > > working groups. > > > > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give > > feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be > > ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing > > the recommendations. > > > > Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the > > documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are > much > > more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the > Wikimeda > > volunteers. > > > > There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one > > sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to > > back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At > least > > at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo". > > > > The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought > through. > > There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how > > that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the > statement > > that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC > > content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After > > years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open > content > > organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic > change? > > > > And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed > > about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All > change > > has negative connotations to some members of the community." > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9 > > > > I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents > > before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is > giving > > a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the > very > > same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback). > > > > This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations > > are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, > > as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating > for > > me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. > > And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on > > this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one > who > > feels this frustration. > > > > Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. > If > > these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will > > not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for > the > > working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give > the > > Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback > > again. > > > > Kind regards > > Ziko > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > 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> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 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>
