Yes and no. Considering that I've been waiting for months for answers to
questions about the WMF Annual Plan, I would say that there is much room
for improvement in communications.
On the other hand, the WMF Comms department itself seems to more or less
ok, and I personally think we'll of WMF's chief communications officer.
So, some good points, and some room to improve. I agree that the status quo
has been this way for awhile and it would be good to see across-the-board
communications SLAs.
Pine
On Oct 4, 2015 12:18 AM, "Mathias Damour" <mathias.damour(a)laposte.net>
wrote:
Le 04/10/2015 05:36, Craig Franklin a écrit :
I take your point Pine, but "improving
communication with the community"
seems to have been a WMF priority for as long as I can remember, yet there
doesn't seem to have been any consistent improvement, as we can see here.
A new approach and direction to how matters like this are communicated is
clearly needed, because the current one doesn't seem to be working at all.
I wouldn't say that the WMF communication is simply bad, it is pretty
professional.
It may rather be that an open communication and keeping control on the
greater part of the decisions (or even conducting the users of the projets
themself, as an average internet company does), are "two tendancies that
are not fully compatible" (to borrow Florence's words).
--
Mathias Damour
[[User:Astirmays]]
_______________________________________________
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>