On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki <
"This page is currently a draft." It is not ready yet for a wide call for
I'm not even sure that the RfC process is the right one for this. It is
open for discussion. I just posted
* I see a lot (maybe 70%) staffer edits there.
I also would like to see more edits from volunteers and other affiliations.
Please jump in! Most WMF employees drafting and discussing there are doing
so out of their personal interest, with no WMF directive and most likely on
their own time. I'm basically the only exception.
* It is complicated to understand the policy.
This new draft is based on an existing Contributor Covenant used already by
several free software projects. See
We keep working on it, and you are welcome to join with ideas and edits.
I have the feeling that only a few staffer building this.
> Please don't forget to involve the community!
See above. The base text has been forked from an external effort shared by
many projects. The page is open to edits and comments from anybody. The
initiative has been announced and discussed here and in other channels.
There is a proposal to offer an email alias to people willing to give
feedback but preferring to do it privately. As you see, we are trying to
get feedback from a wide variety of profiles. What else can we do to get
more people involved?
How you like to enforce this policy on irc?
In the most effective way. :) What is your question, exactly? There is a
lengthy discussion at
What is the committee? A WMF super arbcom?
We are discussing the committee right now. It's not a simple question. It
needs to be staffed by people willing to be in that role, it needs to have
community trust, and it needs to be effective. Your ideas are welcome. See
> Moor transparency would be great, and to write it in simple english so
> that non native speakers can get involved.
This exercise can be hardly more transparent. The fact that you can find so
many open questions, some areas of dense language, and still not so many
participants as we all would wish is due precisely to the fact that those
interested are working openly in a pure wiki style since edit 1, and in
fact since T87773.
As a non-native English speaker myself, I'm also interested in making the
text simpler and clearer for everybody. This becomes easier as soon as
paragraphs enter "testing" or "stable". Some areas are still in
and even "experimental". :)
> Best and with concerns,
Please keep converting your concerns into more feedback. Thank you!
> > There is some discussion now about how the Code of Conduct Committee
> > should be formed. See:
> > *
> > and
> > *
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation