Hoi,
Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".
These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:
- how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
- how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
- how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists
There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important,
but these two
conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
questions.
(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
because that's where we're at....)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the
branding discussion,
and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
like to have a more substantive discussion:
(1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
(2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
at length for additional participation (e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
people use off-list emails instead?
Best regards,
Jim
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>