On 26/04/07, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2007/4/26, Delphine Ménard
<notafishz(a)gmail.com>om>:
... that every time community input is asked on a
subject by a board
member, little to none is given?
And why is it that every time the same things that were put up for
discussion are said "approved' or "official" suddenly everyone finds
something to say?
Shouldn't it be the other around?
IMHO the problem is that in many cases the current process of decision
making is not transparent. Therefore the general community knows about
the decision after it is made and start to directly affect them.
Moreover, in many cases the reasons of decisions are not well
explained or even not explained at all.
There should be clear system of discussion of Board with community. For example:
1. The Board or a given Wikimedia committee officially announce "Let's
start discussion about a given topic, this discussion is important,
because The Board or Committee is about to make crucial decision -
discussion will end at: give a date".
2. The discussion is on
3. The Board summarizes the main conclusions of discussion putting it
on meta page.
4. The Board announce officially the decision with detailed
explanation of reasons on Foundation wiki and also broadcast it to all
whom this decision affects.
5. If the "wild" discussion is still going on - it is simply ignored.
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As far as I know it's almost like that, except for the ending date.
Usually a board member announce the start of a discussion, then
discussion is held, a decision is taken, and then the final decision
is announced.
Actually, few go to discuss it and a lot (note it's always the same
persons who are moaning :) ) moans ...
So the question is what's missing? Communication? What do you need
more than the mails ? Implication ? How could the volounteers be more
involved than actually?
Personnaly I don't thing anything missing in the
communication/implication about the decisions of the board (lack of
communications on other grounds but this is not the place to discuss
it :) ). so nothing is missing perhaps there's too much of "something"
:)
--
schiste