Hi all, I am willing to support a more detailed RfC policy that describes where and how notices should be distributed for different kinds of RfCs, although for the MV RfC I feel notice was adequate and there was lots of opportunity for anyone who felt that notice was inadequate, including WMF, to say so or boldly distribute notice more widely during the month that the RfC was open. I am not of a mind to reopen this RfC, but again, very willing to support a more detailed RfC policy for future events.
Pine
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 July 2014 09:55, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so, bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania - would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump it into a "how to run a large project RFC, and what doesn't work" page somewhere?
There certainly would be usefulness, so I hope there would be equivalent interest. I'd be interested in seeing it, at any rate.
Me too, Andrew. I think we actually do need some sort of checklist or guidance document on how to deal with these sorts of issues. In this particular case, it had the added element of affecting readers possibly even more so than editors, so some thoughts on how to involve readers in discussions that affect their usage of the site would be good.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe