On 08/12/2015 05:13 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
While you're right we don't have a "binding" policy as of yet, I don't think this should be conflated with us having no rules.
We do have some social conventions, and sometimes these work, but they don't always.
There have been instances (on both Wikimedia projects and other projects) where people have explicitly used the lack of a binding policy to justify their behavior. The experience of other projects suggests that making the policy binding and specific helps.
As long as I can remember, there has been an informal rule, of "Comment on the code [or proposal], not the contributor", particularly on the wikitech-l mailing list. Which certainly falls short of many of the concerns that this proposal intends to address (Although that line is included in the proposal), however I just want it to be stated that we are not starting from a state of total anarchy.
I agree.
*Scope is too vague. This is making some people nervous, especially commons, who really should not feel affected by this policy at all
This has been addressed. Commons, Wikipedia, etc. are now clearly excluded.
*Unclear what is "broken". Most answers seem to boil down to some sort of due diligence concern in case something is happening, or "everyone is doing it", which is rather unsatisfactory to the people asking the question. A concise rationale for what we want to accomplish with this, backed up with citations to other people who've dealt with similar issues, would perhaps alleviate some concerns.
I've added such a citation. I would summarize as three reasons:
* We have had concrete violations in the past which this would have provided a tool to address.
* It provides clear guidance (the preference is that people behave respectfully to begin with).
* It sends a message to potential participants: "We welcome you", and backs that with more than empty words.
*Unclear how the policy is going to be enforced (For serious violations), which engenders questions of if it will be enforced fairly. The lack of specification in the enforcement section probably means it will be enforced by the WMF, probably behind closed doors. Will WMF be biased involving disputes where a staff member is a party.
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
Matt Flaschen