I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter,
but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I
remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list