As well-intentioned as that policy was, I can't find that there was ever an
authority (the Board or the community) who ratified the policy. It's well
intentioned and it seems to me that it might very well pass an RfC. The
Board or the community might agree to expand it to cover all grants name
spaces, in one form or another. I support the concept of having a friendly
space policy, and it should be implemented the right way. This next quarter
seems like a good time for that to happen.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:05 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
How can you experiment and explore while going through
processes like
that? The policy already applied for the IdeaLab areas during inspire
(including letting the community know beforehand). I think process for
processes sake, especially on meta, does more harm then good.
Sent from my iPhone
James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
+1 415-839-6885 x6716
On Jul 19, 2015, at 16:55, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. It seems to me that having WMF create a policy for conduct that it
imposes on non-WMF wikis would effectively be an office action
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions>, and the policy for
office
actions doesn't seem to contemplate them
being expanded in to general
moderation of Wikimedia sites. I don't know what Board resolutions would
allow for WMF to impose a policy like this on its own; it seems to me
that
the correct routes to take are (1) a Board
resolution, which is probably
more appropriate for a ToS amendment that I hope will come after
community
consultation, or (2) a community RfC that creates
community policy. If
there is another way that staff is authorized to create policies that
govern volunteer-created content, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the Board
should consider creating one.
Pine
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. Will the friendly-space "expectations" (policy?) for grants spaces
on
>> Meta be proposed as an RfC on Meta? The
documentation on the rollout
plan
>> doesn't mention and RfC. My
understanding is that the right way to
>> implement a policy change like this on Meta is for it to go through an
> open
>> and transparent RfC process, and that the implementation decision is
>> ultimately the community's to make. The experience would inform further
>> discussions about (1) a project-wide friendly space policy on Meta, and
> (2)
>> a wider consultation on a friendly space amendment to the ToS that the
> WMF
>> Board may eventually ratify.
>
>
> I don't see any reason why an RFC would be required (or appropriate)
here.
> The grantmaking process is a WMF function,
and the associated pages on
meta
> are managed by the WMF grantmaking team; they
are free to impose
> requirements (such as compliance with a friendly space standard) on
anyone
> participating in that process (whether as an
applicant or as a
commenter or
reviewer).
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>