We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future wikifounders. "When 20 interested editors isn't enough"...
And don't forget the grants wiki. It was used briefly, and despite being private contains very little private info. It should also be moved to meta and archived. (speaking of which, engaging public grants discussions is a good idea to bring up during planning -- since some of the most active community work in support of grants happened when community members found out about, and were excited by, a potential NEH proposal back in '04... before a barrier to participation was thrown up.)
SJ
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
Good eyes, Sj. I have to agree - opening a new wiki for every single project is a terrible idea, as we've learned from quality.wikimedia.org. Please try to use Meta for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, " strategy.wikimedia.org"
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (userpages, handy community gathering points) and tend to segment the community in a
way
that discourages broad participation.
Meta has been used for strategic planning since the beginning, and has attracted a pool of editors sympathetic to this sort of vision creation
and
consensus building.
SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Eugene, very nice, thank you (and welcome!)
- Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your
current
rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
- I see you are using a non-editable Chandler calendar to track tasks.
Can
you set up an editable one for the whole community to use? It also
seems to
me that more of the 'later' tasks, even at this early stage, should be milestones from / facilitated through / presented to the community,
whereas
they are currently designed around bridgespan and board meetings.
- I have the impression that bridgespan would like to be brought up to
speed on what the community's key issues, motivations, and priorities
are.
You probably know better than anyone; how can community members best
help
get outsiders (like BS) get up to speed on past discussions about WM
and WP
future planning? How have you been getting up to speed?
This might be a good discussion to continue on-wiki -- I expect most of
the
community editing about this will take place on Meta, and its pages are watched by many people who don't read f-l.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Eugene Eric Kim <eekim@blueoxen.com
wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p).
It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested!
Thanks!
=Eugene
--
Eugene Eric Kim ................................
Blue Oxen Associates ........................
======================================================================
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l