I don't think it's a box-ticking exercise at all - the reports have been this way for a long time. Also, we want the community to have an editorial voice - that's why much of the content is written by volunteers and we encourage people to get involved (hence the reminders).
Could it be better? Yes, of course. If a Signpost-style production is your favoured option, let's take some time to sketch out some ideas. I've created a very basic page on the UK wiki for us to make a start. I'd encourage anyone with suggestions to get involved in the conversation. It's at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_would_a_WMUK_Signpost-style_newsletter_loo...
Thanks,
Stevie
On 16 November 2012 15:30, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 16 November 2012 15:26, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
It doesn't seem to be working!
We do ask that if you've taken part in any WMUK activity that you add it
to
the report if you're able. I'm not sure why that seems to have dropped
off,
but there have been plenty of reminders and calls for content.
Perhaps because the "report" is a really dull surrogate for a proper newsletter, allowing the community an editorial voice? And contributing to our public life. Such as the Signpost. And instead looks like the fulfilment of a reporting requirement of a box-ticking kind.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org