Hi Gerard,
The process for starting an RfC is relatively easy, and I'm generally willing to be the initiator of one. Likewise, board resolutions happen freqently, can be straightforward, and could take place to support a friendly space policy.
If there isn't an RfC or board resolution or some kind of process for saying that a document that governs community behavior is actually a policy that has gone through a quality control and transparent approval process, then we could go down the path of letting WMF staff write policies for the community without explicit Board or community involvement and consent; in this case the policy in question will govern community content and behavior, including meta content and community speech which are especially sensitive subjects for WMF to be regulating. I don't think that's a good idea in the semi-democratic movement of Wikimedia. Staff can make proposals, facilitate discussion, and ask questions. The policymakers should be the Board and/or the community.
There is a role for the WMF staff to play here. In particular it would be great for WMF Legal and Community Advocacy to facilitate discussion and make suggestions about a friendly space policy with the goal of having a final product that receives approval from the community or the Board and is enforceable by community administrators as a genuine policy of the community.
Pine On Jul 20, 2015 9:53 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Pine, As you insist on such formality, can you imagine that it is a huge turn-off for others? The thing that troubles ME most, is that a "friendly space policy" is something that is so obvious in so many ways, that I cannot fathom what the objection could be and therefore what the added value is of your insistence.
When you talk about leadership, I hate such officiousness. For what, what are the benefits, who will benefit and, yes this is a rhetorical question. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 July 2015 at 16:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that if the grants discussions were on Foundation wiki that WMF staff would have more leeway to make decisions without going through the Board or community. It seems to me that Meta is a community project wiki that is governed by community leadership and community content
moderation,
and it would be scope creep for WMF to "control" portions of Meta. Especially if the intention is for grants processes to be community led, then community process should be followed. (In general I would like to
see
more community leadership for Community Resources processes and for WMF
to
have a support/backstop role. This worked well in IEGCom when I was on
that
committee, and I appreciate the very cooperative relationship that we had with Siko.) Being lax on enforcement provisions for a friendly space
policy
is something that the community could address if a friendly space policy goes through an RfC.
Thanks, Pine On Jul 20, 2015 4:14 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit
one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that community bureaucracy can be avoided, but since the events of a couple
of
years ago that seems like it's not a plausible option in the short
term.
I do have to say I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of the negative
feedback
that certain aspects of the friendly space policy got from the GAC seem
to
have been handwaved away; with its feeble provisions for enforcement,
it
seems like the sort of policy you have when you want to look like
you're
doing something about a problem, without actually taking
responsibility,
or
addressing the difficult root causes that caused the issue in the first place. If saying "no" to harassment in WMF processes isn't worth
upturning
a few apple carts over, then what is? I do hope that the Community department will have a change of heart and take a much harder line
against
offwiki harassment, starting from here.
On a completely different note, I do hope that the legal team will
share
their "protocol for appearance (or threat of it) at events by banned users". I've been given softly-softly unofficial advice before on the
expectations
if globally banned users show up at a community event, but it would be
good
if this could be made available for everyone that wants to hold an
event
where there is a chance that banned or otherwise problematic
individuals
might show up, so as to ensure a consistent approach.
Cheers, Craig
On 20 July 2015 at 07:15, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- 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@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 Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe