The people who has written the forthcoming recommendations, have been
engaged for around two years, and they have spend manmonths of dedicated
work.
It is not realistic to believe that an outsider (as we others now are)
can substantially change any of the recommendations. We can though give
comments based on our different backgrounds. And one or two aspect
perhaps have such strong weight that it will be of interest for the
Board to take in when deciding the strategy
Perhaps it is the word "conversation" that is confusing, it is more
about "asking for comments" as I see it.
And one week to summarise the comment and one week to get feedback to
this summary could be enough, as an actually discussion of the
recommendation content as such is not a feasible considering the total
process
Anders
Den 2020-01-14 kl. 11:03, skrev Paul J. Weiss:
I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger
concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say
that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the
community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so
that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while
WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy
document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the
process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another
community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time
to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on
those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get
dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the
community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document
really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or
more weeks of time. If the community conversation does go ahead, I think
it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done
with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions
about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a
couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response
summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.
Thanks,
Paul
At 2020-01-13 11:46 p, you wrote:
I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13,
2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After
reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that >
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in
problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback
and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem
risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking
into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an >
impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe
for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments,
and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community
regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process
may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >
_______________________________________________ > 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org%3Fsubject=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>
