Hi Philippe,
it sounds great. Awesome. But still, it doesn't make much sense to me,
sorry.
Saying people can 'edit' is of course bound to cheer people up - but if you
don't understand *what* you're editing, it is also bound to either become a
mess, or either just become what you pick it to become. I can't suggest
changes to team or actions if I am unable to grasp behind the very broadly
stated goals. Right now it is clear who is in the team, but honestly I
don't know you guys well enough to derive from that what you should be
doing.
Lodewijk
No dia 10 de Fevereiro de 2012 08:54, Philippe Beaudette <
philippe(a)wikimedia.org> escreveu:
I think we'll be doing some combination of all three of those. But
here's the important part: you tell us. I built out the brainstorming
page: people are acting as though there's a determined course charted
for this team - if anything, it's the opposite. This is the
opportunity for the community to tell us how you'd like to be supported
by this team. From the ground floor, help us design it. Tell us what
will work best. Do we need more Maggies? Do we need someone to help
us track issues of free culture? Maybe we don't, because the community
has a process in place for that and we just don't know about it.
Help us design the team, and its high level goals. We have what we
THINK some of those will be (they're on the page, but I've pasted them
here [1], also)... but we're open to the community's input - actually,
we're begging for it.
Edit this team, and edit this plan. :-)
pb
[1]- -
* Maintaining a proactive online content-protection strategy, defending
the written and media work of the community on the Projects through
litigation and other means with the involvement of the community;
* Ensuring increasing amounts and efficacy of global community
participation in WMF-generated initiatives (such as revisions to WMF
policies);
* Setting up international meet-ups that recognize and support the role
of administrators and functionaries, including brainstorming ways that
WMF can better help these critical roles within our movement (e.g.,
Arbcoms, checkusers, OTRS, etc.);
* Providing international legislative and policy support to the
community, such as providing information about legislative issues of
interest like global censorship laws; and
* Creating and learning from a community-based advisory board,
including implementation of support ideas that serve the advocacy
interests of the community and Foundation.
On Thu Feb 9 23:42:23 2012, Lodewijk wrote:
I must say that after reading all this and the
detailed page with the
beautiful graphic I am still confused what the department will actually
do.
There are beautiful abstract goals which
everybody would obviously agree
with, and there are highly diverse skills involved from on one end Maggie
and on the other extreme Geoff. All great. But I hope you can help me by
summarizing in one or two sentences of "mortal" English what you will
*do*
everyday. Will you be the ones executing
decisions from Legal? Will you
be
nutshelling community decisions and act like an
ambassador to the
Wikimedia
Foundation? Will you be working on guiding the
community involvement
processes Geoff handled so well with the Terms of Use?
Thanks,
Lodewijk
No dia 10 de Fevereiro de 2012 07:46, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com
escreveu:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org>
> wrote:
>>> "Advocacy" is a much more general term in this context than people
>>> seem to be taking it as. It does not mean lobbying or fighting for
>>> something controversial with outside organizations. As I understand
>>> it, it's the opposite: advocating to the Wikimedia Foundation on
>>> behalf of the community.
>>
>> Yeah, that's my understanding of the game plan here as well. I think
>> the announcement could have been clearer in that regard, but that's
>> pretty much what Philippe and Maggie have already been doing, and what
>> they'll continue to do in a structure that's set up for growth.
>>
>> Sometimes we have a tendency to speak in management lingo when we
>> should be choosing simple, crisp & clear terms. Honest feedback: Burn
>> the chart on
>>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/LCA_Announcement
>> and draft a super crisp mission statement
to slap on the first page
>> for this group. I know, I've been guilty of this as well -- no
>> criticism of the team. When working in an organization this kind of
>> communication style is often expected from you in day-to-day work, but
>> it's not necessarily helpful when communicating with people who have
>> very little time and interest to parse it.
>>
>> I think the brainstorming page is a great start and hope it'll be
>> utilized and further advertised in coming days:
>>
>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Community_Advocacy
>>
>> Congratulations to Philippe and Maggie for their new roles. I think
>> it's about time that we're creating this structure, and I think
it'll
>> generate lots of tangible value for the community.
>
>
> Then my suggestion would be, rename the department.
>
> I completely agree, it is about time Philippe and Maggie get more
authority
> and a dedicated department. I am happy for
both of them. They actually
do
and have
been doing the heavy lifting for years when it comes to the
community. I would actually be more in favor of calling their department
the community department. ;)
Regards
Theo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l