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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 July 2014 09:55, Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>