Aron

The current timeline allows for nothing like that.  According to the META
page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations&oldid=19291903>
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as
well as external advice and research. The final recommendations will be
shared publicly in November, and discussions around implementation will
begin in early 2020. "



Jeff


On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:20 PM Aron Manning <aronmanni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
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