[Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Samuel Klein]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> Some of us feel that the foundation has become out of our reach.
> That no matter how much we discuss and try to reach consensus it will just be too
> hard,

Is this related to the foundation per se?  This is just a difficulty
of large scale consensus that we all share.

> or there will be a lack of interest in our consensus at the foundation, for any
> real change to happen. You practically have to get a grant on behalf of the
> foundation anymore in order to convince them you've got a good idea.

There is no process for one group to convince another group across
projects that they have a good idea.  This is true whether or not one
of the groups is the foundation (and true even when the group doing
the 'convincing' is the foundation).  Let's fix this.

If you wouldn't mind picking a 'good idea' that's been hard to share
recently, that would be a fine place to start.

> should be some of that. More generally however the foundation should take it
> upon themselves to increase the level of discourse on these lists by seeding
> it with great topics, and, more importantly, allocating time from each of
> their employees in which they are expected to participate in these

This is true.  I think that if you look at the first posts in new
threads over time, you'll find that foundation members do this
regularly [and often struggle to get significant feedback, even to
such excellent posts as detailed project or strategy considerations;
monthly reports; and entire budget proposals].

It is not only the foundation staff, which make up a small minority of
the audience and participants of thelist, who need to work together on
this!  the shyer staff, like the other highly motivated wikimedians
who lurk but don't post, need help finding a voice here.
And the central goals of this list, discussion about new projects,
multilingual and cross-project issues, chapter setup, general
fundraising and outreach, include many things that simply don't get
enough time or attention on the list from any group.


> exceptions) by raising the level of discourse, and most all of Foundation
> business is conducted either in person, or in private e-mails. We feel like
> we have to shout in order to get their attention, and that not only do we
> not know what they are up to, but we have no say in it.

If you start to provide a bit more detail to each of these clauses and
feelings, you may find that this concern falls apart.  There aren't
many people shouting about positive things that need attention; there
are regularly staff asking for input who receive none; and there are
regularly people trying to talk about projects they are working on
with only sporadic interest or feedback.  Finding ways to improve all
of these conversations is critically important, but I think that
starts with recognizing them as conversations, not as one-way
broadcasts which are failing to meet certain standards.

Sue writes:
> I think it's fair to say that some of the staff are a little afraid to engage on foundation-l --- it > can be intimidating, especially for new people. I think the staff feels both an obligation and > a desire to engage with community members, but some tend to do it in forums that feel
> safer and more supportive (which might be on internal-l,

This is not what internal-l was designed for, and one of the great
dangers of proliferating private lists is that they actively divide
communities.  One can create moderated world-readable lists to have a
less intimidating forum; there is no need to also make it hidden.

SJ