Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ 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
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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