Getting back on topic, the board's resolution says:
We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by: * Treating new editors with patience, kindness, and respect; being aware of the challenges facing new editors, and reaching out to them; and encouraging others to do the same; * Improving communication on the projects; simplifying policy and instructions; and working with colleagues to improve and make friendlier policies and practices regarding templates, warnings, and deletion; * Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility; * Increasing community awareness of these issues and supporting outreach efforts of individuals, groups and Chapters; * Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation; and encouraging best practices and community leaders; and * Working with colleagues to develop practices to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers.
This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on things, and we can probably learn from each other's experience; however, what information there is seems to be housed on the strategy wiki, which many users avoid because it's not part of the WMF matrix (i.e., SUL doesn't apply). With that in mind, I wonder if there can be a place where projects discuss what has helped and not helped, located somewhere on Meta.
Coming from the behemoth English Wikipedia, where I make most of my contributions, I know that communication becomes increasingly difficult as size increases, and that there is a tendency to "standardize" messages and processes to the point that they begin to immobilize sensible action.
I'm particularly interested in policy simplification; I know our project has far, far too many complex and even contradictory policies, guidelines, and miscellaneous pages that result in "alphabet soup" messages that even experienced users find almost impenetrable. I pity the newbie who gets a "welcome" message that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example. Featured article writers "discuss" what it really means on a regular basis, so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the contradictions in it.
A few thoughts to bring us back where we started.
Risker/Anne