While I agree that this page *could *have been made more visible, Sue had little reason to widely advertise it, and I do not understand why do you think the WMF should have formally announced it. It was a work page for her personal brainstorming, one that was "not a collaborative process" and certainly not an official WMF page.
This is what we have the *Signpost *for, and it was covered there on 8 October under "In brief" ( http://enwp.org/WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-08/News_and_notes).
Regards, --Ed
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:14 AM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the comments of Jan-Bart and DeltaQuad regarding process and openness, although I feel that we're veering off topic a little from the subject of COIs.
Since we're veering anyway, I would like to make a distinction between providing openness and providing notice. To the best of my ability to see, Sue's deliberations weren't announced here on Wikimedia-l by anyone from WMF. I appreciate Sue having the discussion in the open, but I think the notice to the community that these deliberations were happening was little to none from what I can tell. Notice to Wikimedia-l and Research-l was provided by me (not anyone from WMF) when I found the proposal's pages a mere two days before Sue's stated wrap-up date of October 14. From my point of view, the absence of notice to the community via this list was a communications shortcoming that I feel is worrisome. I informed a staffer of this on his talk page but he didn't acknowledge my comment, which further heightens my concern about communications gaps, so if someone at WMF could tell me to whom I should address my concern about these communications issues, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Pine
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l