Hello,
I strongly agree with what Chris wrote.
In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
talk about an issue. They say things like:
* "this feels like défa vu"
* "you are not constructive"
* "we must look forward, not backward"
* "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"
This kind of reactions do not contribute to an atmosphere in which I feel
that my concerns are taken seriously.
Kind regards
Ziko








Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 08:57 Uhr schrieb Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>:

> >
> > Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now
> over
> > four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as
> > such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of
> > mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer
> affiliated
> > with the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact, plenty of the staff members
> at
> > the Wikimedia Foundation were hired *after* superprotect was removed.
> >
> > I don't think bringing up superprotect in this discussion is especially
> > relevant or helpful.
>
>
> I sort of want to agree with this, but actually I think it goes a bit
> deeper.
>
> If you ask questions about the relationship between the WMF and the
> community, sooner rather than later someone will talk about Superprotect.
> If you ask any of the 1,000 people who signed the petition against
> Superprotect, most of whom are still active one way or another, then
> Superprotect will probably be the first thing out of their mouths, even
> though it happened 6 years ago. It's sufficiently ingrained in peoples'
> minds that asking these people not to talk about Superprotect is like a
> British person asking someone from the USA not to talk about the Boston Tea
> Party.
>
> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>
> In part it's because people perceive there is nothing to prevent an
> identical situation recurring. In some ways I think this perception is
> unfair, for all the reasons you mention. But it still exists, and in part
> it exists because of things the WMF has not done.  The Foundation's
> expectations about how it interacts with the community remain fairly
> unclear and fairly undocumented, from the Board level down. I recall there
> have been some written statements of how the WMF now handles product
> features, though I think this didn't come the ED or less the Board. I don't
> believe there was ever a written review publilshed of Superprotect, while
> there are written reviews and statements lessons learned from many other
> situations that had much less impact. In short, the WMF is not seen as
> having put the issue to bed in a way that results in everyone involved
> moving on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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