On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:25 AM Željko Blaće <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:34 AM effe iets anders <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> (sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff >> member probably means that this process is less community driven than I >> thought. ) >> For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is >> 40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is >> causing so much opposition? >> > That's a good question. I'd like to see a summary of feedback and open issues. [NTS: we need an 'Issues' tab alongside Talk pages] Some common points made in Meta discussions that remain unaddressed:
Oveararching: * No sufficient mechanism for revision / self-correction [*and no 'partial support' option, as Z. said. leaving a 'no' as the only way to push for other revisions*] Basic concerns: ⁑ Mandatory? training ⁑ Mandatory? pledge‽ ⁑ No right to be heard ⁑ Easy to troll + game Broader concerns: ⁂ Long / confusing text, hard to translate, harder to apply evenly ⁂ Could override rather than support local community governance ⁂ Feels WMF-driven rather than community-driven ... ⁂ ... could become time-eating bureaucracy regardless of benefit The construction of vote procedure did not allow for partial support (one I > would also prefer myself) but only binary + comment. > This is suboptimal for lengthy documents and elaborate (but suboptimal) > processes. >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/AWLZM6ILLNPEOSD2LZSHZY7YRHYX7O3I/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
