[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission
thogol at googlemail.com
Mon Apr 23 14:40:06 UTC 2012
Please have a look at
I hope this is sort of satisfying for now? I will not do that for the
2011 term. Already this one cost me more than two hours and it is only
from 1st of February to now. :) If you do the maths you end up at ~20
cases for the 2011 term (5 cases in 3 months = 20 in a year). I think
there were some more than that but not many more. Also included on
that page is the outline of our processing that I gave earlier.
2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> Top posting.
> This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for
> *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is
> in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for
> one. Seriously, if they solve a case with 2 emails or 200, I couldn't
> care less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600
> emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first
> place, if I am not mistaken.
> Could the interested people, as was asked, draw up a few "report
> guidelines" on meta as to what they would like to see, and could the
> commission can take just a bit of its time to see what's
> feasible/reasonable and what is not (as per Mike's proposal), and
> agree to issue a report at given intervals so that the black box is
> maybe not so black?
> It seems that something along the lines of X cases, Y accepted, Z
> rejected (reason for them being rejected if possible), solved
> succesfully/not solved and time to solve a case (date it came in, date
> it was solved) would probably answer most of the concerns expressed
> here. If you know you have to do it in advance, then the task should
> be bearable. Let's look forward, and not dwell on what we didn't think
> about before.
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer <thogol at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2012/4/23 Mike Christie <coldchrist at gmail.com>:
>>> This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would
>>> like a clarification. What's the decision-making process within the
>>> WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a
>>> WMF process)? I understand how processes are implemented (or not),
>>> and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet
>>> understand the relationship between community requests (or requests
>>> from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks. What
>>> are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as
>>> this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's
>>> appropriate? Is it part of their job description to communicate via
>>> lists such as this, and justify their decisions?
>> Mike, the ombudsman commission does not consist of WMF employees. We
>> are just volunteers. We don't get paid for what we are doing. ;) If I
>> got paid for it, I would happily search all my emails and create all
>> sorts of statistics the community wants to have, but I didn't
>> volunteer for being a statistican or doing anything related to that,
>> so I just won't do it. :) Explaining how we process requests is
>> something else, and I did already explain that process.
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l