Hi guys,
As agreed at yesterday's meeting[0], I moved the "new groups" text[1] to meta yesterday, and this morning finished summarizing the questions brought up in the previous thread[2]. Several people also made some rather insightful comments in that thread, and I think they deserve re-stating, but I'm not going to try to put words in people's mouths—particularly words said on a private list.
Would everyone please take a look at [1] and add your thoughts?
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups#Questions
Hi Austin
Great to see this. Is this page on 'New groups' meant to replace the page 'groups' [4] or should we keep both?
Cheers
Jon
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:56 , Austin Hair wrote:
Hi guys,
As agreed at yesterday's meeting[0], I moved the "new groups" text[1] to meta yesterday, and this morning finished summarizing the questions brought up in the previous thread[2]. Several people also made some rather insightful comments in that thread, and I think they deserve re-stating, but I'm not going to try to put words in people's mouths—particularly words said on a private list.
Would everyone please take a look at [1] and add your thoughts?
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups#Questions
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
I think we should keep both for the moment. Theo's text has more to do with a general definition of groups (that can be linked also with the roles matrix) than with new groups in particular, IMO.
Thanks Austin!
Best, galio
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Austin
Great to see this. Is this page on 'New groups' meant to replace the page 'groups' [4] or should we keep both?
Cheers
Jon
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups
*Jon Huggett* +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com *www.huggett.com* Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:56 , Austin Hair wrote:
Hi guys,
As agreed at yesterday's meeting[0], I moved the "new groups" text[1] to meta yesterday, and this morning finished summarizing the questions brought up in the previous thread[2]. Several people also made some rather insightful comments in that thread, and I think they deserve re-stating, but I'm not going to try to put words in people's mouths—particularly words said on a private list.
Would everyone please take a look at [1] and add your thoughts?
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups#Questions
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi
I made some minor changes, moved a couple of things around. I agree with Galio my classification and the new groups model are two separate things, they should not be inter-changeable.
who is planning on announcing it on the mailing lists?
Theo
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Galileo Vidoni galio2k@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should keep both for the moment. Theo's text has more to do with a general definition of groups (that can be linked also with the roles matrix) than with new groups in particular, IMO.
Thanks Austin!
Best, galio
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Austin
Great to see this. Is this page on 'New groups' meant to replace the page 'groups' [4] or should we keep both?
Cheers
Jon
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups
*Jon Huggett* +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com *www.huggett.com* Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:56 , Austin Hair wrote:
Hi guys,
As agreed at yesterday's meeting[0], I moved the "new groups" text[1] to meta yesterday, and this morning finished summarizing the questions brought up in the previous thread[2]. Several people also made some rather insightful comments in that thread, and I think they deserve re-stating, but I'm not going to try to put words in people's mouths—particularly words said on a private list.
Would everyone please take a look at [1] and add your thoughts?
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_groups#Questions
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
who is planning on announcing it on the mailing lists?
At yesterday's meeting it was generally agreed that we should release it after giving everyone 24 hours to weigh in and incorporate their comments; I can do this, but I'll give Galio first shot if he wants to do it.
Austin
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
Great to see this. Is this page on 'New groups' meant to replace the page 'groups' [4] or should we keep both? Cheers Jon [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups
Both pages are clearly related, and should eventually be folded into a more coherent structure, but for the time being I think they should be kept separate.
Unfortunately, they're both extremely vaguely named, so there's bound to be confusion. Perhaps one or both should be moved to more specific titles?
Austin
Hi,
On 5 March 2011 17:51, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, they're both extremely vaguely named, so there's bound to be confusion. Perhaps one or both should be moved to more specific titles?
another possibility is to link to each other with a short explanation of the context.
Regards, Alice.
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org