Hi Ziko,
if you're saying that the proposals should not get 'extra points' because
they happen to come from a working group that did not function optimally
(far from that - although it was definitely not useless either) I totally
agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its
impact rather than its source.
Best,
Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 14:23, Ziko van Dijk
<vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl>escreveucreveu:
Lodewijk,
I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it
extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them
- think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It
must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged
"roughness". And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group
again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the
concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call
"very rough and a first phase" is put on the table again. So I take it
seriously and say what according to me must be said.
Kind regards
Ziko
2012/2/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>rg>:
Hi Ziko,
what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a
first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow
that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws
in
the design (for which I don't necessarily see
an immediate solution).
When
wordings are the problem, we can probably fix
that together - it is more
important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard
enough
as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this
point would bump into the
same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole
learning
process all over again.
So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible.
best,
Lodewijk
No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk
<vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl>escreveucreveu:
Hello,
I am afraid that the letter takes over the "results" of the MR group
that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I
remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague
Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the
International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of
its transparency (!).
The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the
proposed "charter" text. On the talk page I later commented that the
WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new
letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again.
It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory,
and if we had more information about what these new entities will be
for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems
could emerge etc.
Kind regards
Ziko
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
-----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l