Dear Patrick,
Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy, directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification far before the ArbCom letter.
Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." - there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step (Andreas Kolbe)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step To: Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: < CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb"
Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
– To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
– To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
– To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)?
– To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?
Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans?
I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised
by
the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established
policy
update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1]
Patrick
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Thanks. You say,
*The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the
close
and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.*
If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and
ratification",
does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February 2022?
Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place?
Thanking you in advance for your clarification.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, all.
In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email:
Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must
be
adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one
year
after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is
looking at
enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.
Figuring
out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a
very
difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting Committee from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the movement
in
this area.
To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their last thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no more discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes
place. The
revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for
comment and
discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the
input
received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review.
In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement
Guidelines
at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will
take
place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community
members
and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details. We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would
make a
fair and practical process.
Patrick
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revie...
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Fair comment. P
-----Original Message----- From: nosebagbear@gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next
step
Hello,
I would make a couple of notes here:
One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of
the
process.
There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft policy text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for
open
review and further revision.
While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen nothing formal and nothing in writing.
Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits (that's why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to
review
than the aspects already there, not less.
Yours,
Nosebagbear _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ <
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
Hoi, Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit under the law for anything? It is not and it has not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear nosebagbear@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy, directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification far before the ArbCom letter.
Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." - there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step (Andreas Kolbe)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step To: Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: < CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb"
Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
– To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
– To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
– To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)?
– To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?
Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans?
I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and
the
ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised
by
the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established
policy
update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1]
Patrick
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Thanks. You say,
*The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the
close
and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.*
If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and
ratification",
does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February 2022?
Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place?
Thanking you in advance for your clarification.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, all.
In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email:
Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is
put
into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC
must be
adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one
year
after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is
looking at
enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.
Figuring
out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a
very
difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting
Committee
from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the
movement in
this area.
To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their
last
thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no
more
discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes
place. The
revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for
comment and
discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the
input
received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review.
In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement
Guidelines
at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will
take
place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community
members
and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details. We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would
make a
fair and practical process.
Patrick
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revie...
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Fair comment. P
-----Original Message----- From: nosebagbear@gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment
period
for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next
step
Hello,
I would make a couple of notes here:
One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of
the
process.
There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft policy text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for
open
review and further revision.
While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen nothing formal and nothing in writing.
Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits (that's why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to
review
than the aspects already there, not less.
Yours,
Nosebagbear _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ <
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
A meta-RfC would also be dominated by English Wikipedia, which of course is in the interest of en.wp, but hardly anyone else. So thanks for that idea, but no thanks.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit under the law for anything? It is not and it has not. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear nosebagbear@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy, directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification far before the ArbCom letter.
Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." - there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole, probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
*Richard (Nosebagbear)*
Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement of the MCDC.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step (Andreas Kolbe)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +0000 From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step To: Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: < CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000055427605d280b9bb"
Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
– To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
– To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
– To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-netw... and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)?
– To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?
Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans?
I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley pearley@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and
the
ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being
revised by
the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established
policy
update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1]
Patrick
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Thanks. You say,
*The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the
close
and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.*
If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close and
ratification",
does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February 2022?
Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place?
Thanking you in advance for your clarification.
Best, Andreas
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello, all.
In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email:
Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process
under
review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is
put
into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC
must be
adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text
one year
after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is
looking at
enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.
Figuring
out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a
very
difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting
Committee
from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the
movement in
this area.
To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their
last
thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no
more
discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes
place. The
revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for
comment and
discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the
input
received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review.
In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement
Guidelines
at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will
take
place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community
members
and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details. We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would
make a
fair and practical process.
Patrick
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_revie...
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Fair comment. > P > > -----Original Message----- > From: nosebagbear@gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment
period
> for > the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next
step
> > Hello, > > I would make a couple of notes here: > > One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be
of the
> process. > > There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft > policy > text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for
open
> review and further revision. > > While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen > nothing > formal and nothing in writing. > > Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the > community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits > (that's > why they were open questions!) the actual next needs MORE time to
review
> than the aspects already there, not less. > > Yours, > > Nosebagbear > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
> message/GD5CSLNTF7XBCQVCEZT7CGD7XHQ2PRIQ/ > <
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
> > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
> To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
>
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Patrick Earley Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager Wikimedia Foundation pearley@wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org