Hello, Problem statement: Various movement processes, programs, often request feedback, suggestions or comments. In the process, they get feedback and questions through different channels such as mailing lists, office hours, talk pages etc. Now, sometimes it remains unclear what happens next. Sometimes it remains unclear if a requested feedback is taken/incorporated or not (and why?). And sometimes feedback and questions remain just unanswered. Possible solution: "Feedback was requested" and "Feedback is received" — now this loop needs to be closed. Closing the loop in a consultation process is important. (narration below)
A technology policy analyst spoke at Wikimedia Summit 2019. I'll quote a part from the video[1]. He told— "The core of responsive regulation is community consultation processes. However, closing the loop on the consultation process is critical, otherwise participants feel that they have wasted time providing feedback. For example, the Indian telecom regulator first issues a consultation paper. Then solicits the first round of feedback, then solicits a second round of counter comments, then they hold round tables, and, finally, they issue the recommendation or the regulation. But when they do that, they make sure they close the loop. They provide reasoned explanations for why suggestions were rejected... ..." When any important major Wikimedia process comes forward and asks for feedback or suggestions, there might be different results such as feedback/suggestion accepted, partially accepted, rejected, not actionable, kept on hold etc. However, closing the loop in this process is important, example: "we received "this" feedback and this feedback was not incorporated or was not actionable "because _______"..." How can it help? "Closure of a feedback loop" can: a) help to understand how a feedback/suggestion was taken/noted, and what were the observations? b) show respect to the people and their feedback, and most possibly encourage people to share feedback and ask questions in the next consultation process c) eliminate duplication. If a particular feedback is taken to a conclusion, several other people don't need to suggest the same thing in future. I am posting this as an individual, and over-all this is a process-related suggestion/feedback. If the major Wikimedia processes or programs soliciting feedback or questions consider this, I think that will be very helpful. Regards, User:Titodutta References [1] Video: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Summit_2019_-_Key_listener_Sunil_Abraham.webm (quoted timestamp: around 3:40 of the video). Used as a general citation from resource available on Wikimedia Commons
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DFKDA5XKUISMGUCXPHMNMQJTXQ37ND66/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
