Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through. There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko
Hey Ziko,
I'm sure you yourself can point out the recommendations that are based on a year of deliberations and research than those that are not. It is pretty hard work to gather all the feedback from the last year as well as analyse, weight and incorporate it into the final recommendations. This work is still taking place and won't be finished until mid-September, so right now it would be great to get your view on the goals for 2030 in the recommendations rather than pick apart one-liners (and those views a can also be more than just one's own opinion, if you're so inclined).
Best, Philip
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 15:48, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through. There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through. There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through. There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too. Some get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s) 14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing. Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other way around.
The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs, some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about it.
Aron ᐧ
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too. Some get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
questions
are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
in
October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
of
the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
à(s)
14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups
have
been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to
give
feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with
implementing
the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one:
the
documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by
one
sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation
how
that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim.
After
years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and
recommendations
are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts
invested,
as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually
mean.
And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki,
on
this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the
timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents
will
not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving
feedback
again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Aron
The current timeline allows for nothing like that. According to the META page https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations&oldid=19291903 "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as well as external advice and research. The final recommendations will be shared publicly in November, and discussions around implementation will begin in early 2020. "
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:20 PM Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing. Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other way around.
The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs, some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about it.
Aron ᐧ
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people
don’t
know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too. Some get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within
a
reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people
wo
feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some
really
bad stuff getting passed. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a
kind
of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
questions
are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in
which
case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy:
please
reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030,
for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
in
October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year
of
hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
of
the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review
your
schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time
for
that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
à(s)
14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups
have
been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work
of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to
give
feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to
be
ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with
implementing
the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one:
the
documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They
are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by
one
sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used
to
back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation
how
that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim.
After
years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being
informed
about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the
documents
before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and
recommendations
are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts
invested,
as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very
frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually
mean.
And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta
Wiki,
on
this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only
one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the
timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents
will
not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months
for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then
give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving
feedback
again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To be more precise: on September 15 Working Group members, the Board of Trustees Members, and all Chiefs of the Foundation will convene in Tunis for a sprint to discuss these materials.
The working groups will have a lot of work to do to come up with something that convinces decision makers to embrace recommendation to change anything from the current status quo.
From participants at Wikimania I sense buy in for a number of more or less
radical changes. The working groups have to be very clear and very specific which changes they want and why.
Regards,
Ad
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as
I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile environment this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration, and keep the conversation alive. I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
Aron
ᐧ
Hi Ziko and all,
Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
Best wishes, Nicole
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com wrote:
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input
as
I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile environment this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration, and keep the conversation alive. I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
Aron
ᐧ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello,
the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance for the community to give substantial input is very limited. In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest time in reading texts that are not ready. The experience is very frustrating.
Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Hi Ziko and all,
Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
Best wishes, Nicole
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input
as
I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
environment
this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration, and keep the conversation alive. I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
Aron
ᐧ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Every participant in an iterative multi-party process likes to be the last. In a certain sense the larger community will be the last. They can opt to abandon the movement. But for those volunteers who will be loyal to the movement, it is the far-away Board has the last look and final say-so. Given the difficulty of actually getting any significant level of response from the larger community, especially of mere content contributors, it would be nice - and wise IMO - to allow for the larger community to have a long look at finished draft proposals.
The sad fact is that the only way the larger community would be likely to take such proposals seriously would be if there were an imminent deadline. Unfortunately, it is hard to take the imminent deadline seriously given the absence of substance in some areas. Thus a chance has been missed to get substantial involvement from the broader community.
I wonder why some of the working groups have so little to show. Is there substantial disagreement among members?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 2:00 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance for the community to give substantial input is very limited. In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest time in reading texts that are not ready. The experience is very frustrating.
Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de>:
Hi Ziko and all,
Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a
response
to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
Best wishes, Nicole
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning aronmanning5@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke geoffey.hawke@gmail.com
wrote:
"Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after
which
working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement
input
as
I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within
that
timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental
to
these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
environment
this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next
iteration,
and keep the conversation alive. I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
Aron
ᐧ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0 https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:48, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
The sad fact is that the only way the larger community would be likely to take such proposals seriously would be if there were an imminent deadline. Unfortunately, it is hard to take the imminent deadline seriously given the absence of substance in some areas. Thus a chance has been missed to get substantial involvement from the broader community.
This is quite confusing. 1. There *is *a proposed deadline. 2. I agree to not take it seriously. 3. How is it a fact, that an imminent deadline is necessary for the larger community to take such proposals seriously? 4. I agree it would be sad, if that was the only motivation for the community to think about it. 5. There was quite significant involvement by the community, many useful comments and suggestions. It's more than enough for the WGs to evaluate, and update the recommendations. Significantly more input at until the next iteration would be overwhelming, and impossible to process.
Aron
Aron, Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or semi-official capacity? If so could you indicate in what capacity, so we have some idea of where this is coming from. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 16 August 2019 21:20 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing. Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other way around.
The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs, some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about it.
Aron ᐧ
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta. You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too. Some get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha". Kind regards Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net>:
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
questions
are not answered it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort). Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!
I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
in
October. Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
of
the community who involved itself on the process).
I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
Best, Paulo
Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
à(s)
14:48:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups
have
been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to
give
feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with
implementing
the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one:
the
documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by
one
sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation
how
that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim.
After
years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and
recommendations
are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts
invested,
as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually
mean.
And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki,
on
this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the
timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents
will
not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving
feedback
again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 09:00, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or semi-official capacity?
I don't think it would make sense, if a WG member would write this. I speak my opinion as an editor. To be clear: I meant I assume the WMF will continue working on these drafts, incorporating the feedback, and proposing new versions.
Aron
The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in wikimedia-l, meta main page, etc.
Best,
MarioGom
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through. There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've no idea what you mean by " second iteration". I was told by Work Group members that those are the recommendations that were used as starting points for the discussions by the Work Groups at Tunis last weekend.
Therefore, all that is most probably outdated stuff by now (it was already outdated by the time it was posted). I really don't know what happens to the discussions going on there, but I don't believe they will be taken into account, since by now those recommendations have already advanced to somewhere else.
Best, Paulo
Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 25/09/2019 à(s) 08:45:
The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in wikimedia-l, meta main page, etc.
Best,
MarioGom
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
the
working groups.
If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing the recommendations.
Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
Wikimeda
volunteers.
There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
change?
And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested, as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean. And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
who
feels this frustration.
Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline.
If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback again.
Kind regards Ziko _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org