[Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

[WereSpielChequers]

Re OKeyes "Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors
completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their
own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some
traction;" I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore
readers, I'm aware that many editors are motivated by the desire to see
their work read. But I could accept a compromise with part of the
development budget being ringfenced for initiatives proposed and
prioritised by the community.


Re Gerard "the community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our
community more friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy
project and endorsed by the board." I took part in the Strategy project,
and I agree with some of what came out of it, especially the bit about
making our community more open. But just because some of us took part in
the Strategy exercise doesn't mean that we can't usefully comment now. Nor
does a strategy of being nicer mean that every development intended to
achieve that will actually do so, or indeed be the best way to do so. I'm
pretty confident that if the community was to prioritise potential
developments as to whether they would make things friendlier and easier for
the sort of newbies that we want, then wikilove would be a long way from
the top of the list. The GLAM sector is a case in point, reading
http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-how.htmlI
don't get the impression that the ability to give each other kittens
would make Commons as attractive as Flickr for museums to upload image
collections. Developments to match flickr's "robust tagging and search
tools" would, but what chance is there of us getting IT resources for that?

WereSpielChequers