RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. However, we split
into sub-committees while we were still a functioning group. The subject
recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees are performing
vital functions still.
I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely
said that it "ought to" have RCOM approval. There are also more than two
"review coordinators" (not not "reviewers") -- it's just that
DarTar and I
have accepted the burden of distributing work. When people are busy, we
often coordinate the reviews ourselves.
I welcome your edits to make it clear that review is optional. As you
might imagine, I have plenty of work to do and I appreciate your good-faith
collaboration on improving our research documentation.
-Aaron
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com
wrote:
The review process occurs in all instances where
review coordination is
requested (by emailing me or DarTar). There's only been one case where a
review took more than 2 weeks and that was because the researcher didn't
respond to requests for more information quickly.
Nathan, I think you are mistakenly thinking that all research needs to be
reviewed. Only research that involves the recruitment of Wikipedians as
subjects is intended to be reviewed via RCOM's process. Only those studies
that request it will be reviewed.
-Aaron
Thanks, perhaps the confusion exists because there is so much apparent
infrastructure around the review process (including a big button that
creates a research project page, ostensibly to facilitate a review). It
might also be that communication from the former RCOM's members is
misleading; in one e-mail in this thread you say RCOM is defunct, and in
another you suggest that research recruiting Wikipedians needs RCOM's
review.
Either there is an RCOM and it functions effectively, or nothing should or
must rely on a defunct committee to complete a defunct process. If the
committee is indeed defunct, then messaging around the review process
should be adjusted to make it clear that it is voluntary, and there are
only two reviewers acting on their own initiative. Your insistence on
having it both ways is leading to confusion, not just from me but on the
part of people proposing research projects and expecting comment from
"RCOM."
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l