2008/9/8 Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com:
At 04:19 +0100 8/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/8 Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com:
I know what Ross means. I've been lurking around here a little while longer and have been moderately active on the list and the London meetups and must say that it got slightly chaotic.
There was and is, if not even more than before, a lot of momentum, but also a lot of emotion. Especially comments like "I don't trust Alison and vice-versa" is uncalled for on a public, archived mailinglist.
Somebody asked a question, that was the answer. Would you prefer a lack of transparency in favour of everyone being all luvvy-duvvy?
I think the word is respect.
Respect is earned.
At 14:13 +0100 8/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Respect is earned.
In that case we disagree.
Gordo
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Respect is earned.
In which case I am intreauged how you feel your messages on this list are likely to earn you respect from the community.
2008/9/8 Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Respect is earned.
In which case I am intreauged how you feel your messages on this list are likely to earn you respect from the community.
I think the results speak for themselves. What's the difference between the situation now and the situation 6 months ago? What do you think caused that change?
2008/9/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/9/8 Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Respect is earned.
In which case I am intreauged how you feel your messages on this list are likely to earn you respect from the community.
I think the results speak for themselves. What's the difference between the situation now and the situation 6 months ago? What do you think caused that change?
That isn't central. What what is central is how to go forward and doing so. While learning lessons from WMUK 1.0 is important focusing on individuals is unlikely to help us learn those lessons.
2008/9/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
That isn't central. What what is central is how to go forward and doing so. While learning lessons from WMUK 1.0 is important focusing on individuals is unlikely to help us learn those lessons.
If you have a better idea, speak up.
Best we can tell it is not a good idea to leave a group of fairly isolated people to do the startup without much in the way of ways to effectively monitor progress and some idea over when the situation is throwing up red flags. I think these are both things we are endeavoring to fix in WMUK 2.0 Both by trying to arrange things so there is a significant wider community interest in progress and some form of timetable by which we can judge progress. Ideally we can tell there are issues within 3 months and that it is time to drop and start again in 6.
At the moment we are trying to keep people interested through the board elections. Once those are complete we can hope to keep interest by monitoring progres. Discussion of possible future projects and collecting a list of groups and people that might be useful to contact once WMUK 2.0 is up and running.
Best we can tell it is not a good idea to leave a group of fairly isolated people to do the startup without much in the way of ways to effectively monitor progress and some idea over when the situation is throwing up red flags.
In general, yes, you're absolutely right. I would like something more specific though, but without the old board telling us what went wrong, there's not a lot we can learn from it.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org