On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:19:59 +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
I too have to say that while I agree with a narrowing focus, I disagree with the tabling of Fellowships. Not only have they brought a lot of great talent into the foundation (as I saw when I worked there, as well as after), but more than anything the WMF is an agent of disruptive innovation, and I feel strongly that encouraging Fellows to explore things that might not be viable for the rest of the staff (whether due to resources or interest) serves that innovation, and thus the foundation itself. I believe at one point there was a Fellow working on studying ways to improve en.wp's internal governance. After witnessing the utter debacle that is going on in the clarifications on Malleus' ban, I'm more convinced than ever that such a review is critical and that the WMF should actually be devoting MORE resources to this. Editor engagement comes not just through things like Visual Editor (which is awesome), but also creating a conducive environment for new editors from a policy standpoint. I'm afraid we're going to lose that in a narrowing focus.
Dan Rosenthal _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dan,
whereas I can agree or disagree with you on your points, I fail to see the connection to the Malleus's ban debate. Could you please elaborate? I am not sure I would like to see WMF involved there, if this is your point (probably not).
Cheers Yaroslav