Hi Andy,
the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way.
Best, Philip
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 18:53, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
This is a process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this:
Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? All change has negative connotations to some members of the communityto be re-written, to actually reflect the proposal's real and significant risks?
As it stands, I do not find it to be "solution-oriented", nor indicative of "due review and reflection", nor "in the spirit of collegial collaboration", and I do not think anyone could plausibly argue that it is any of those things.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe