Either [RCOM is] functioning or its not, surely?
Well, I explained that there are functioning sub-committees still. In
other words, there are initiatives that RCOM started that are alive and
successful, but we no longer coordinate as a larger group. I don't know
how else to explain it. I guess you could say that RCOM is still
functioning and that we no longer require/engage in group meetings.
As Kerry noted earlier on, the policy as it stands [1] says that
researchers "must" obtain approval through
the process described. If the
wording now needs to be changed to "ought to" then surely this requires
more consensus than your single message here?
That's a proposed policy. Until it is passed by consensus, the "must" is a
proposed term. I think that it should be "must", but until that consensus
is reached, I'll continue to say that it "ought to".
Regarding researchers stating what should be regulated, I think there is a
big difference between *deciding what should be regulated* and *being
involved in the discussion of *how* it should be regulated*. Hence why I
welcome participation. What I'm saying is that you have a vested interest
in not being regulated, but I'd still like to discuss how your activities
can be regulated effectively & efficiently. Does that make sense?
b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain clarity
and I supported this but it was met with silence,
which is why I followed
up.
I welcome you to raise it to them. I don't think it is worth their time,
but they might disagree.
But what is clear is that clarification is required - especially on the
distribution of tasks between Foundation employees,
the research community
and Wikimedia editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside
this list.
I think that the proposed policy on English Wikipedia does that quite well.
That's why I directed people there. Also, again, I am not working on RCOM
or subject recruitment as a WMF employee. I do this in my volunteer time.
This is true of all of RCOM who happen to also be staff.
if you want process to be more clearly documented, you also have to address
people like Poitr who would rather not have processes described in detail.
When you guys work out how clearly you want a process to be described,
please let me know. I'm tired of re-spec'ing processes. This is the third
iteration.
If the policy is incorrectly described on the policy pages, then someone
from RCom (or whatever it is now called) should be the
one to change this -
preferably with some discussion.
Heather, that is a *proposed *policy page on English Wikipedia. It is not
part of RCOM. It would render RCOM irrelevant for subject recruitment
concerns. That's why I started it. I don't think that
RCOM/WMF/researchers should own subject recruitment review. I think the
community being studied should own it and that RCOM/WMF/researchers should
participate.
Also, I am not your employee. This is my volunteer time. I don't have
much of it, so I focus on keeping the system running -- and it is -- and
improving the system -- which is the proposal I linked to. If you want
something done and other volunteers don't have time to do it. Do it
yourself. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT>
-Aaron
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker
<aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com
wrote:
RCOM is not functioning as a complete group
anymore.
I'm a little confused why this wasn't made clear right at the
beginning of
this thread e.g. when others suggested this might be the case and you
refuted them? Also, I'm not sure what 'functioning as a complete group'
actually means. Either its functioning or its not, surely?
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.
So, does that mean that is what the policy *ought to* be now? And do you
believe that this should this be the way that the policy gets decided?
Because it isn't right now as far as I can see. As Kerry noted earlier on,
the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers "must" obtain approval
through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to
"ought to" then surely this requires more consensus than your single
message here?
re. the comment that I (and the other researchers?) on this list shouldn't
be the ones to decide what the regulation should be, I disagree on two
counts. a) It seems on the one hand that you want this to be
"self-regulation" i.e. you invited researchers on this list to join R-COM
at the beginning of this thread, but that you don't think that the
researchers here should be able to determine what to regulate. I know that
you're looking for an inclusive process but you can't have it both ways: if
we are going to help regulate, then we need to at least help decide how to
regulate. b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain
clarity and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I
followed up.
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 can understand your frustration; I really can! I know that you've
done a
lot of really great, prior work on this and I don't think any of us are
saying that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But what is
clear is that clarification is required - especially on the distribution of
tasks between Foundation employees, the research community and Wikimedia
editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside this list.
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.
I'm frustrated by this response. If the policy is incorrectly described
on
the policy pages, then someone from RCom (or whatever it is now called)
should be the one to change this - preferably with some discussion. I find
it frustrating that WMF employees are often the ones who make the final
policy pronouncements but then tell others to implement it. And if we don't
do the work, then we're apparently not assuming good faith.
This is a great opportunity to rejuvenate the process; hopefully it will
eventually be seen that way :)
Best,
Heather.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l