Hi,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I see Tory responding to end her engagement on the
issue, 2-4 days after
she started responding on the talk page. I see a total of 4 edits from her
this month, on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:India_Education_Program/Analysi…
I left a question for Barry mostly, on the talk page. Do you think it was
the right decision to have Tory do this report? If you recall, I mentioned
why you didn't chose a community member or even an Indian to do the report
about shortcomings of the education program *for India*? maybe in
addition to Tory?
I found Tory's report neutral, informative, exhaustive and professional.
Since this issue involves people from all spheres of Wikipedia movement, I
feel it is wise that she was chosen to do this to given an objective view.
We don't need an Indian to analyze this issue.
This was what I tried to allude to earlier- consultants, employees,
generally people with paid engagement for a topic,
leave after the said
term of their engagement. They can not provide the ongoing discussion and
engagement a community member can.
Individual community members leave too. But the community exists.
Similarly, employees and consultants may leave. But, WMF will be there and
I can see that Barry and others are trying their best to address this issue
in their official capacity.
Let's please discuss the issues put forward by the report instead of
discussing how the report itself should have been done. The former is more
important.
Ravi