Hello,
Problem statement: Various movement processes, programs, often request
feedback, suggestions or comments. In the process, they get feedback and
questions through different channels such as mailing lists, office hours,
talk pages etc. Now, sometimes it remains unclear what happens next.
Sometimes it remains unclear if a requested feedback is taken/incorporated
or not (and why?). And sometimes feedback and questions remain just
unanswered.
Possible solution: "Feedback was requested" and "Feedback is received"
—
now this loop needs to be closed. Closing the loop in a consultation
process is important. (narration below)
A technology policy analyst spoke at Wikimedia Summit 2019. I'll quote a
part from the video[1]. He told—
"The core of responsive regulation is community consultation processes.
However, closing the loop on the consultation process is critical,
otherwise participants feel that they have wasted time providing feedback.
For example, the Indian telecom regulator first issues a consultation
paper. Then solicits the first round of feedback, then solicits a second
round of counter comments, then they hold round tables, and, finally, they
issue the recommendation or the regulation. But when they do that, they
make sure they close the loop. They provide reasoned explanations for why
suggestions were rejected... ..."
When any important major Wikimedia process comes forward and asks for
feedback or suggestions, there might be different results such as
feedback/suggestion accepted, partially accepted, rejected, not actionable,
kept on hold etc. However, closing the loop in this process is important,
example: "we received "this" feedback and this feedback was not
incorporated or was not actionable "because _______"..."
How can it help?
"Closure of a feedback loop" can:
a) help to understand how a feedback/suggestion was taken/noted, and what
were the observations?
b) show respect to the people and their feedback, and most possibly
encourage people to share feedback and ask questions in the next
consultation process
c) eliminate duplication. If a particular feedback is taken to a
conclusion, several other people don't need to suggest the same thing in
future.
I am posting this as an individual, and over-all this is a process-related
suggestion/feedback.
If the major Wikimedia processes or programs soliciting feedback or
questions consider this, I think that will be very helpful.
Regards,
User:Titodutta
References
[1] Video:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Summit_2019_-_Key_listene…
(quoted timestamp: around 3:40 of the video). Used as a general citation
from resource available on Wikimedia Commons