[Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?

[Samuel Klein]

I would like to see this become an open part of Meta.  It is traditional
meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly.

Sam.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com>wrote:

> On 8/11/2012 8:05 PM, Mono wrote:
>
>> Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical?
>>
>> Some options:
>>
>> A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address.
>> B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address.
>> C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing.
>> D) Move content to Meta and leave it open.
>> E) Do nothing.
>>
> I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
> couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
> think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to
> say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).
>
> I wouldn't mind having the content migrate to Meta. I know there were
> well-considered reasons why the strategy wiki and various others were
> created as separate sites, but I'd like to see us do that more as dedicated
> spaces within a common site.
>
> As to marking content as historical, I'm not sure that's really the best
> use of the material. Many strategic questions do not really go away, and
> they can and should be revisited as part of the next planning process. I
> would favor refactoring and merging, it should become a living space again,
> not an archive.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266