On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Risker wrote:
I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to this draft code of conduct?
You may find these links helpful:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017- February/086595.html https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Summary_of_criticisms
With all respect, the summary is not a summary. Wading through long, long more of the same is not helpful. We have had more of the same here on this list.
risker asked if it is process or contents. as far as i was able to follow: both. isarra hits it so much on the spot, with "When designing anything - processes, software, architecture - you need to know your use cases in order to properly address them." from process perspective it is driven by WMF employees. (nearly) no input from volunteers, and if there was input, it was "WMF, please let the volunteers run making policies for volunteers". from a content perspective, the policy is bloated, does not remove something else. no case was shown where the pre-existing or common sense is not good enough. the WMF persons driving it seemed to be fine with ignoring these inputs - or mainly the "no-input". at the end of the day if you have 1000 pages of policies, or 1050, what is the big difference? what is the difference of having 40 committees or 41? one. or, maybe 42 for the douglas adams fans.
sometimes i feel a mentality of "less is more" would be a benefit. 1050 pages of policies sounds like a harassment by itself. but would i invest time to address it? no way - i is not fun and makes tired. if we want less policies or more efficient ones, WMF could pay less persons, they would then have no time any more to produce texts like this. or WFM could pay a person to delete pages, instead of paying a person to add pages. kind of paying a fitness trainer to loose weight i guess.