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 &lt;nosebagbear(a)gmail.com&gt; 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, &lt;wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > wrote: > >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to >> wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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: >> >> 1. 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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; >> 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 &lt;pearley(a)wikimedia.org&gt; >> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> Message-ID: >> < >> CAHRTtW9h69ewsO1V3M6HzGn4EmUGLb0GvX9bKD+Q0Hi6T_F8jg(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; >> 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-net… >> 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 &lt;pearley(a)wikimedia.org&gt; >> 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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; >> 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 &lt;pearley(a)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_revi… >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < >> >>> peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Fair comment. >> >>>> P >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: nosebagbear(a)gmail.com [mailto:nosebagbear@gmail.com] >> >>>> Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 >> >>>> To: wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> >>>> https://www.avg.com >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Patrick Earley >> >>> Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager >> >>> Wikimedia Foundation >> >>> pearley(a)wikimedia.org >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Patrick Earley >> > Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager >> > Wikimedia Foundation >> > pearley(a)wikimedia.org >> > >> > >>