Hi Samuel,
I'm quite lost where we are, and where we are headed - hence probably some of my confused email(s). The impression I get at this moment is that the draft on meta is supposed to be the final version that only would require a vote etc. From your last email I understand that this is not the case (which I'm glad about) although it is not entirely clear what *is* the intended timeline forward.
The Board is reviewing the recommendations to them, and will indicate whether it supports moving towards formal resolutions to realize those recs.
Two recommendations will require close attention by other groups:
* The Charter will require review and endorsement by individual chapters.
* The accountability standards should be checked with similar care to iron out rough spots [by groups for which they don't match self-assessment of what is needed to be accountable].
Some Chapters have been reviewing the recommendation for a Chapters Council, but the language is still going through review, and this too will need another round of focus.
Any language will be open to public review for a few weeks, even where it is purely a resolution for WMF process improvement.
Personal contacts are of course always good, and I do like the idea of chopping the thing into pieces that are digestible for mortal people. I'm not sure if the Signpost would be an ideal place to have this series (since it is primarily enwiki facing) but I'm not sure whether WikiZine is such a much better place to have it because of its more limitations on actual involvement and discussion. What I would definitely cheer upon if we could at the very least at the same moment every time launch a thread in internal (and perhaps as well in Iberocoop in Spanish/Portuguese and on the Asian mailing list etc?) to allow input. However we should be crystal clear what the status of the document is, and how much input/changes/whatever is preferred. If the board considers this in the weekend to be the final version, we should at least be honest about that towards the chapters (although I would highly regret it).
I'm being clear about the process with the board. "this high-level recommendation has tentative approval" pending specific language is the sort of thing I hope to be able to say about all recommendations.
I'm happy to think along with any postings (quite in general), but I'm currently not in any capacity to take the lead though.
Excellent, thank you! Can you help get the current drafts reviewed by someone from WM:NL ?
S
Lodewijk
No dia 7 de Outubro de 2011 18:04, Samuel Klein
<meta.sj@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi Lodewijk,
Everyone will be asked to review and provide feedback on the latest changes. Starting with this list :-) Many people have been working on Meta, including you and others on the chapter's council rec.
We will surely need to organize a wider review of the charter language, likely including a personal contact with a rep from every chapter and other current movement group.
I can't help but feel that as a working group, we failed because we have not been able to reach the level of involvement we were looking for.
I do think that we need to continue to pursue involvement and participation, more aggressively and personally in the coming month than we have sinec Wikimania. We are still looking for engaged review and constructive edits, but I think we are much closer to a clean set of recommendations that are easy to comment on.
If you or someone else is willing to work on a Signpost series with me, I'd like to cover each of the recommendations in some detail, as we intended during the first months of this year, in a weekly series. By the end of which we should have much more engagement, and people thinking actively about how they will engage int he coming year's strategizing.
SJ