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.
-Aaron