I think methodological objections shouldn't prevail over substantial
objections.
I can agree most of consensus in CoC draft came from WMF
staffers/contractors, but:
*no one was prevented from weighing-in
*lists were filled with invitations to weigh-in
*I think most of us didn't comment just because they agree with the overall
meaning of the draft.
IMHO most of criticism doesn't actually target the draft but rather
increasing influence of WMF in various sectors traditionally
community-driven or unregulated. I'm not commenting nor this influence nor
the objections but I think CoC is just a symbol of another issue.
Vito
2017-02-26 15:31 GMT+01:00 Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>om>:
Personally
I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
exercise power over others
If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction
of the bad faith accusations that have been leveled at them, the howls of
outrage would be deafening.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de>
wrote:
Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
[…]
> On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces
and
are not
happy about how some aspects have gone:
Matthew and a few other people have been trying
/really hard/ to make
Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a
path
is very difficult: it requires spending many many
hours of your time
(read
life) on it, elaborating, deliberating,
documenting, discussing things
with
people from different paths of life, etc. They
have been doing it for
months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to
exercise
power over others but to make our technical
spaces better, to make them
more enjoyable to contribute in.
> For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember:
We
may not
agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to
help
them on this path. What they are doing is a good
thing and that's
something
that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy
conversations.
This is a circular and illogical argument. Just because
someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does
not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take.
And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo-
ple to keep pushing the cart to honour the navigator's dedi-
cation is self-destructive.
Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
exercise power over others, but made our technical spaces
better and more enjoyable by reporting bugs, debugging, an-
swering questions, writing patches, reviewing contributions
or creating or translating documentation.
Tim
_______________________________________________
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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>