I hope this is sort of satisfying for now? I will not do that for the
2011 term. Already this one cost me more than two hours and it is only
from 1st of February to now. :) If you do the maths you end up at ~20
cases for the 2011 term (5 cases in 3 months = 20 in a year). I think
there were some more than that but not many more. Also included on
that page is the outline of our processing that I gave earlier.
Th.
2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com>om>:
Top posting.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for
*some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is
in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for
one. Seriously, if they solve a case with 2 emails or 200, I couldn't
care less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600
emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first
place, if I am not mistaken.
Could the interested people, as was asked, draw up a few "report
guidelines" on meta as to what they would like to see, and could the
commission can take just a bit of its time to see what's
feasible/reasonable and what is not (as per Mike's proposal), and
agree to issue a report at given intervals so that the black box is
maybe not so black?
It seems that something along the lines of X cases, Y accepted, Z
rejected (reason for them being rejected if possible), solved
succesfully/not solved and time to solve a case (date it came in, date
it was solved) would probably answer most of the concerns expressed
here. If you know you have to do it in advance, then the task should
be bearable. Let's look forward, and not dwell on what we didn't think
about before.
Cheers,
Delphine
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer <thogol(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
2012/4/23 Mike Christie
<coldchrist(a)gmail.com>om>:
This might be a digression, but I'm fairly
new to this list and would
like a clarification. What's the decision-making process within the
WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a
WMF process)? I understand how processes are implemented (or not),
and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet
understand the relationship between community requests (or requests
from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks. What
are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as
this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's
appropriate? Is it part of their job description to communicate via
lists such as this, and justify their decisions?
Mike, the ombudsman commission does not consist of WMF employees. We
are just volunteers. We don't get paid for what we are doing. ;) If I
got paid for it, I would happily search all my emails and create all
sorts of statistics the community wants to have, but I didn't
volunteer for being a statistican or doing anything related to that,
so I just won't do it. :) Explaining how we process requests is
something else, and I did already explain that process.
Th.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
@notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto -
http://photo.notafish.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l