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@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l