[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Lodewijk lodewijk at effeietsanders.org
Mon Apr 23 21:34:01 UTC 2012

Just for the record: the reason I asked for the number of emails is not
because of an exact number: but for people to understand how much of a
workload it is (and appreciate it!). For that number I only care about the
order of magnitude in the end - the important numbers are indeed the number
of cases etc.

Thank you very much Thomas Goldammer for your effort of providing this
data. I appreciate your help in answering the questions.


El 23 de abril de 2012 15:46, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>escribió:

> 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.
> Cheers,
> Delphine
> 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.
> >
> > Th.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> --
> @notafish
> 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 mailing list