As well-intentioned as that policy was, I can't find that there was ever an authority (the Board or the community) who ratified the policy. It's well intentioned and it seems to me that it might very well pass an RfC. The Board or the community might agree to expand it to cover all grants name spaces, in one form or another. I support the concept of having a friendly space policy, and it should be implemented the right way. This next quarter seems like a good time for that to happen.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
How can you experiment and explore while going through processes like that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire (including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
Sent from my iPhone
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 x6716
On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions, and the policy for
office
actions doesn't seem to contemplate them being expanded in to general moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me
that
the correct routes to take are (1) a Board resolution, which is probably more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after
community
consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates community policy. If there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board should consider creating one.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The documentation on the rollout
plan
doesn't mention and RfC. My understanding is that the right way to implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
open
and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
(2)
a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
WMF
Board may eventually ratify.
I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
The grantmaking process is a WMF function, and the associated pages on
meta
are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they are free to impose requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
participating in that process (whether as an applicant or as a
commenter or
reviewer).
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe