On 8/10/15, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 08/10/2015 07:10 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not really sure what you're talking
about here. We already have:
As you know, none of those are binding policies that apply to all
Wikimedia technical spaces.
This only applies to in-person events.
This is more or less reasonable, but it's not even a guideline. It's
just an essay,
This does not apply to the vast majority of Wikimedia technical spaces,
and does not have the same (or particularly similar) content.
This is only binding on staff and board members, not the whole
community. It's also not specific enough about both what is problematic
behavior and how we solve it.
Matt Flaschen
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
While you're right we don't have a "binding" policy as of yet, I
don't
think this should be conflated with us having no rules.
As long as I can remember, there has been an informal rule, of
"Comment on the code [or proposal], not the contributor", particularly
on the wikitech-l mailing list. Which certainly falls short of many of
the concerns that this proposal intends to address (Although that line
is included in the proposal), however I just want it to be stated that
we are not starting from a state of total anarchy.
After reflecting on the proposed policy a little bit, and various
comments I've read, here's how I feel:
Broadly speaking:
*Scope is too vague. This is making some people nervous, especially
commons, who really should not feel affected by this policy at all
*Unclear what is "broken". Most answers seem to boil down to some sort
of due diligence concern in case something is happening, or "everyone
is doing it", which is rather unsatisfactory to the people asking the
question. A concise rationale for what we want to accomplish with
this, backed up with citations to other people who've dealt with
similar issues, would perhaps alleviate some concerns.
**People who are hindered by the status quo, don't feel comfortable
coming forward with their experience. Which is 100% understandable,
but nonetheless makes it difficult to judge the appropriateness of the
policy.
*Unclear how the policy is going to be enforced (For serious
violations), which engenders questions of if it will be enforced
fairly. The lack of specification in the enforcement section probably
means it will be enforced by the WMF, probably behind closed doors.
Will WMF be biased involving disputes where a staff member is a party.
--
bawolff