On 14 Aug 2014 14:50, "David Cuenca" <dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A pattern we see over and over is that the
developers talk at length
about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
adequately consulted. Pretty much no matter what steps were taken to
do so, and what new steps are taken to do so. Because there's always
someone who claims their own lack of interest is someone else's fault.
Talking in several venues about what one is doing cannot be considered
consensus building. Actually it is the opposite, because it is an
extrinsic
change and as such it cannot be appropriated by any
ad-hoc community. Even
worse, it gives developers the wrong impression that they are working
under
general approval, when actually they might be
communicating only with the
people that normally would accept their project, but not the ones that
normally would reject it.
how should this be solved?
To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect
that their work won't be overruled.
That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)
Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>