Leila, the decrease in interest that you mention is typical of processes in which the continued discussion leads to recommendation which are only recommendations. If I were of the opinion that what I said here would only at most be used as input to the person actually making the decision, I would very likely say what I have ti say at an early stage, and then stop, because there would be decreasing effect from anything I might say further. But if what I and others say were to be what makes the actual decision, my interest will very likely increase as the time of decision approaches--and at that point, people who may not have wanted to discuss, but know their view and what to join in the decision, will do so.
Your suggestion, which I think amounts to saying that you and board will decide what to do in the end, will justify most people in ignoring this process. The only ones who continue will be either those who want to talk indefinitely, or those who want to encourage others to raise the level of dissatisfaction with the decision process (or its likely conclusion) to the level that it might be changed. On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:25 PM Aron Manning <aronmanni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Pine, > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Aron, > > > > Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around > > the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with > > Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make > > decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was > to > > put itself in charge. > > > > My knowledge about Superprotect is khm... superficial (no pun intended), > from recollections and some randomly read discussions, but you made me > interested to deepen my knowledge. Could you reference the arguments that > you were reminded of, together with my specific comments that you > associated with it, so I can better understand your comment? > > Regarding my comments: these are original thoughts based on researching > policies and guidelines, the actual application of those, user feedback > from editors (present and former) and impressions from readers. The extent > of my research pales in comparison to those made by the WMF, therefore I > focus on topics where I've acquired enough knowledge that my opinion and > vision have taken form. Superprotect is not one of those topics, but maybe > one day it will be. > > > > I'm curious. How do you think that all-Wikiverse governance should be > done? > > This is a complex topic. You partially addressed this in your previous > > email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance > > structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse > policies > > and budgets. > > > > Thank you for asking. I'm happy (this week ;-) that someone shows an > interest in these discussions. My hope is that there will be a global > project for volunteers motivated in researching and improving the > efficiency of governance practices, creating recommendations in cooperation > with the WMF. Similar to the working groups - if you wish -, with > significantly more volunteer participation and a focus on implementation > details, not high-level concepts. > > My interest is more localized than what you expect as I'm not interested in > questions of high-level governance of the all-Wikiverse such as budgets, > representation, and global structures. The devil is in the details, that's > where my focus is: I believe *how* we implement the Medium-term plan > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019 > > > will > determine which targets are met. I've experienced the need to meet some of > those targets and understand others' need for the rest. I wish to put my 2 > cents into the implementation. > > In this spirit, I've advocated for transparency and cooperation between the > communities and the WMF in the office actions consultation which you can > read > here > < > https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/meta.wikimedia.org/Aron_Manning/1/Talk:Office%20actions/Community%20consultation%20on%20partial%20and%20temporary%20office%20actions/09%202019 > > > (in > chronological order) and drafted a design proposal > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aron_Manning/Design/Reporting_tool> > for the planned User reporting system > < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019 > > > that yet again focuses on transparency while giving privacy to the reporter > in the initial stages (before a report is evaluated) and making it > technically possible to include limited non-public evidence. I would be > delighted if you would share your thoughts on the discussion page. > > > Aron > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- David Goodman DGG at enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ 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>
