Aron
The current timeline allows for nothing like that. According to the META page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations&oldid=19291903 "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as well as external advice and research. The final recommendations will be shared publicly in November, and discussions around implementation will begin in early 2020. "
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:20 PM Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing. Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other way around.
The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs, some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about it.
Aron ᐧ
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people
don’t
know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too. Some get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within
a
reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people
wo
feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some
really
bad stuff getting passed. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
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
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
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