Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You 
don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t know 
what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems 
to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too.  Some 
get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones 
that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet 
snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same 
time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large 
proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do 
need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. 
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ziko van Dijk
Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

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>


_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to