Anthony,
I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are
entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made
this distinction clearer from the outset:
1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is
what I think you are discussing; and I agree, it's very important, and it
would ideally be conducted with somebody other than WMF in the driver's
seat.
2. A general practice of debriefing significant projects. I consider
organizational learning to be the primary benefit of this (so that mistakes
are repeated less often, and practices improve); so whether it attracts any
non-staff's attention is not of central importance in my view. But it *is*
very important that it include reflection from high in the org chart (which
was the case with the Belfer Center debrief, but not with the Media Viewer
debrief).
#2 is the one I had in mind for this particular thread, but #1 is very
important too.
Thank you for the kind words about my participation in #1. I do think,
generally, people with a good understanding of Wikimedia's history and
values, but without recent organizational ties, should be included. Whether
or not I'm right for the task, I'll leave aside for the moment.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is
about who drives it.
Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
wouldn't bother reading their reports.
If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads.
(And
some interesting points I hadn't been aware
of, such as Hassar's efforts
dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
aligns well with what I know.
I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like
this.
Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to
whoever happens to read it;
but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of
all
significant stakeholder groups, and will command
the attention of those
doing the work in the future.
What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
*collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable,
of
course; but the learning is the key to an
organization getting better at
what it does over time.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>> wrote:
Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-th…
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on
Wikipediocracy
that seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peteforsyth@gmail.com
<javascript:;>');>>
wrote:
> >
> >> Brandon and Sarah:
> >>
> >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow
here,
as
>> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
divisive
> >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> >>
> >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and
what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology
like Liquid Threads and
Flow,
>> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
you
> >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> >> organization
> >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> >> repeating
> >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each
other?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com
<javascript:;>>
wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
but
> >
> embraced?
> > >
> > > What would need to be different?
> > >
> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
would
>> > get
>> > > better at asking and exploring.
>> > >
>> > > Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community,
which
is
>> > why
>> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta
talk
> >> page,
> >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to
find
> out
> >> > what editors need.
> >> >
> >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened
to.
> There
> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
find
>> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page
that
> >> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're
welcome
to
>> join
>> > the discussion."
>> >
>> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
>> community
>> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
>> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting).
People
> >> who
> >> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
> that
> >> > thing by the Foundation.
> >> >
> >> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we
didn't.
We
> >> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why
good
search
> was a
> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
would
>> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
>> >
>> > Sarah
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
>> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Anthony Cole
--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>