Leila, the decrease in interest that you mention is typical of processes
in which the continued discussion leads to recommendation which are only
recommendations. If I were of the opinion that what I said here would only
at most be used as input to the person actually making the decision, I
would very likely say what I have ti say at an early stage, and then stop,
because there would be decreasing effect from anything I might say further.
But if what I and others say were to be what makes the actual decision, my
interest will very likely increase as the time of decision approaches--and
at that point, people who may not have wanted to discuss, but know their
view and what to join in the decision, will do so.
Your suggestion, which I think amounts to saying that you and board will
decide what to do in the end, will justify most people in ignoring this
process. The only ones who continue will be either those who want to talk
indefinitely, or those who want to encourage others to raise the level of
dissatisfaction with the decision process (or its likely conclusion) to
the level that it might be changed.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:25 PM Aron Manning <aronmanning5(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Pine,
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Aron,
Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was
to
put itself in charge.
My knowledge about Superprotect is khm... superficial (no pun intended),
from recollections and some randomly read discussions, but you made me
interested to deepen my knowledge. Could you reference the arguments that
you were reminded of, together with my specific comments that you
associated with it, so I can better understand your comment?
Regarding my comments: these are original thoughts based on researching
policies and guidelines, the actual application of those, user feedback
from editors (present and former) and impressions from readers. The extent
of my research pales in comparison to those made by the WMF, therefore I
focus on topics where I've acquired enough knowledge that my opinion and
vision have taken form. Superprotect is not one of those topics, but maybe
one day it will be.
I'm curious. How do you think that
all-Wikiverse governance should be
done?
This is a complex topic. You partially addressed
this in your previous
email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance
structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse
policies
and budgets.
Thank you for asking. I'm happy (this week ;-) that someone shows an
interest in these discussions. My hope is that there will be a global
project for volunteers motivated in researching and improving the
efficiency of governance practices, creating recommendations in cooperation
with the WMF. Similar to the working groups - if you wish -, with
significantly more volunteer participation and a focus on implementation
details, not high-level concepts.
My interest is more localized than what you expect as I'm not interested in
questions of high-level governance of the all-Wikiverse such as budgets,
representation, and global structures. The devil is in the details, that's
where my focus is: I believe *how* we implement the Medium-term plan
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
will
determine which targets are met. I've experienced the need to meet some of
those targets and understand others' need for the rest. I wish to put my 2
cents into the implementation.
In this spirit, I've advocated for transparency and cooperation between the
communities and the WMF in the office actions consultation which you can
read
here
<
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/meta.wikimedia.org/Aron_Manning/1/Talk:…
(in
chronological order) and drafted a design proposal
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aron_Manning/Design/Reporting_tool>
for the planned User reporting system
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_…
that yet again focuses on transparency
while giving privacy to the reporter
in the initial stages (before a report is evaluated) and making it
technically possible to include limited non-public evidence. I would be
delighted if you would share your thoughts on the discussion page.
Aron
_______________________________________________
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>