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(a)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(a)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(a)telkomsa.net>gt;:
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(a)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(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>
---
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(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>
_______________________________________________
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>