Quim Gil <q...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > [...]
>> This is a dangerous precedents to a bureaucratization of our >> fundamental processes. A group should be about a vision. My vision of >> this proposal is I clearly see this proposal as the first step in a >> path who will lead to a road, where we will ask new contributors to >> sign request CLA with copyright transfer to the Wikimedia Fundation. > Ok, you could have started with this paragraph and then I > could have simply answered: W-W-WHAT!!?? :) > Your main complaint is about bureaucratization (and control, > apparently). I don't know how you get to this idea but if > it's because of the wording used in the Groups pages I'm > willing to edit them further to sweep away this fear, > uncertainty and doubt. > The idea of the Groups is precisely the opposite: to enable > people to do more, do it easier and in their own way. > [...] I think the problem with some groups is that if you are not in the group, you're not in the group. Do you need to join the Bug Squad to squash bugs? What happens if you triage/ fix a bug without consulting them? Will they feel that their "territory" has been infringed, their rules have not been followed and maybe withdraw from MediaWiki development as a consequence especially when they thought of joining the Bug Squad as a commitment and sacrifice to the community with some powers and prestige as reward? This doesn't happen in groups defined by geography who do not have any other responsibility, but I certainly share Sébastien's concern about groups targetting other fields. Tim _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
