I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
way around.

The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely
necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about
it.

Aron
ᐧ

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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