In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult questions.
(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level because that's where we're at....)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion, and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would like to have a more substantive discussion:
(1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
(2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking at length for additional participation (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can people use off-list emails instead?
Best regards, Jim
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