[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours

[Lodewijk]

Hi Eugene,

thanks for the explanation, I think the whole banning was quite justified.
But besides that, as I also asked in an earlier email, I can understand
geniice's feeling that it is unclear what the topics are (which can be
solved by an agenda as he suggests or a description of what tend to be the
topics nowadays as I asked). Could you perhaps make it more insightful?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2010/6/2 Eugene Eric Kim <eekim at blueoxen.com>

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:16 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or not.
> >
> > Okey so it happened that the thing was taking place at a time
> > reasonable for my timezone. So I check
> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas
> >
> > So there hasn't been an agenda in months. Fair enough agendas can be a
> > pain. Hey how hard can it be to wing it?
>
> You're confusing the agendas of a Task Force to the office hours of
> the strategy process as a whole. As stated at:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
>
> the goals of these office hours are to answer questions and engage in
> discussion. These are not formal meetings, but a designated period
> where Philippe and I make ourselves available to interact with people
> in real-time. We keep the agenda open, but at the same time, we also
> do our best to keep the discussion relevant. And, as with the strategy
> process as a whole, we've worked hard to maintain an environment of
> constructive, positive discourse.
>
> > Personally I think it's a bad idea to sacrifice screen real estate on
> > order to solve the odd TR:DR problem. So I make this clear. I'm told
> > that this is related to having a deadline. I start to make the case
> > that perhaps things are getting a little too meta. I also make the
> > case that a tool that is based around removing context and nuance form
> > posts is a bad idea. I start to make the case that if there is a
> > deadline to meet it is better to work out how to do it using
> > technology we already know well (remember no one was considering
> > adding reflect to say en.pedia) rather than trying to introduce new
> > technology and hope it will allow us to do things faster to the extent
> > it makes up for the time lost deploying it and learning how to use it.
> > But at that point I was kinda banned.
>
> The decision to kick geniice off the channel was mine. You can read
> the log to see how the discussion evolved and my explanation for why I
> made this decision:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/2010-06-01
>
> I don't think foundation-l is the appropriate place to discuss these
> specific grievances, and I'm happy to continue this discussion on
> strategy wiki's Village Pump. That said, I think we have a strong
> record for openness and tolerance of all views, as long as the
> discussion has remained polite and constructive, and I'm happy to
> address any general questions about this here.
>
> =Eugene
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim
> Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/
> ======================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>