[Foundation-l] Communication

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>> Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
>>
>> The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they do [snip] but this is what a thread
>> like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if you
>> don't.

I think this is totally true and needs to be remembered. Working with
the community shouldn't be a frustrating experience. [Or maybe it's
just that long-term community members have gotten inured to a certain
level of frustration and therefore don't even notice anymore? I can't
tell].

[snip]

> Ceterum censeo, I think a minimal group of wise folks from
> the community should be brought in to identify all the changes
> that are totally uncontroversial.

Is it perhaps fair to suggest that changes that more people see are
likely to be more controversial? Usability and fundraising both are
particularly difficult in this regard, since huge numbers of people
(everyone who uses the site) are affected by those changes. On the
other hand, I rarely see controversy over, say, a new feature that
some people want but most will never use.

Along with this, there are certain hot button issues, such as:
* deletion of content, for any reason (but particularly anything that
could be connected to censorship or legal repression)

those actions will always be controversial, and for pretty good reason
-- such actions come potentially close to violating our core values,
and therefore should be examined closely.

I'm trying to think of what other always-controversial topics are, on
the WMF scale (as opposed to on the projects). Maybe we should make up
a list. (And then distribute "wrong version" stickers).

-- phoebe