Hi all,
This thread is diverging more and more away from its original subject.
Please open a new thread if you're interested in discussing items not
directly related to Quim's email re CoC. This can help the audience of this
list with discovery of relevant content and discussions later on.
Thanks
I think the calendar I mentioned above on Meta probably could be improved
in some ways. If a lot of folks start using it, it will become quite long,
for one. An archiving system for each month might be a good idea.
What ways could there be to sort or segment the calendar that would be
useful for v
Hoi,
Please ..
From my perspective we should not talk about secondary topics like this. We
should certainly not be this aggressive. I said it before and I say it
again. When you are interested in what we aim to achieve talk about WHAT we
can do to do better and let HOW we can do better from an org
"Jethro"
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
> Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are indeed a
> lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them if
> they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
>
> But they cannot then also argu
FYI, Edward Galvez has been maintaining this calendar that has been going
for a while that chapters and staff have been using for various
consultations, surveys, and RfCs.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Calendar
Seems to me this is a good approach to avoid the issue of "my
Pine,
Of course we could benefit from consolidation and pruning of communication
channels. This has been the case for at least a decade, how to do that
without alienating part of the community that uses the pruned channels is a
very difficult task, however.
Nevertheless, this does not mean one can
My point is more or less the same one that you're making. Communications
(too much and too little) and information overload are both challenges. I
don't think there's going to be a silver bullet solution, but I hope that
WMF will invest effort into addressing this set of problems during the next
An
You mean, "how to deal with people who complain they weren't consulted
then turn around and complain they were excessively consulted"? At
this point, the appropriate thing would be to put forward a plausible
solution rather than complain they did the thing you claimed they
hadn't sufficiently done.
Chris,
That last paragraph assumes that people (1) know where to look and (2) have
hours to spend watching countless channels for announcements. On the other
hand, there's also a problem of burying people in so many announcements,
surveys, and consultations that people start to tune it all out. Th
Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are indeed a
lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them if
they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
But they cannot then also argue that they didn't know about it. If people
want to know what's go
On 09/03/17 20:36, Antoine Musso wrote:
The RfC has been going on for almost two years already. Given the flood
of announces on a wide range of mailing lists, I don't see how one could
have missed it.
The flood might be exactly how. Keep being inundated with notices, many
people are likely to
Looking at the talk page briefly, I'm seeing few objections to the close
and it appears that no one has reverted it, so it's likely to stick. I
remain skeptical of the process (not to say that it's all bad; Matt
certainly did a lot of outreach on mailing lists), but I wouldn't suggest
using this as
Le 08/03/2017 à 20:02, Pine W a écrit :
> I am not sure that I agree with that closure. There have been several
> concerns mentioned in the talk page and in email threads, and it's not
> clear to me that the document should be moving forward without an RfC on
> the whole document. If I had time to
Dear Pine,
I see your concern, but it seems exaggerated.
There was an early suggestion of a final RfC on the complete draft. That
changed, as stated and debated last April: there would be a code of
conduct, no two ways about it. The subject for consensus was only what it
said, topic by topic. T
As a complement to my update yesterday, the call for candidates to form the
first Code of Conduct Committee has been sent to wikitech-l, mediawiki-l,
engineering, labs-l, analytics, wiki-research-l, and design. It will be
advertised in other technical spaces in the next hours. You can read it
i.e.
I am not sure that I agree with that closure. There have been several
concerns mentioned in the talk page and in email threads, and it's not
clear to me that the document should be moving forward without an RfC on
the whole document. If I had time to look into this further I would be
considering re
Quim, Thank you for the update.
This code of conduct isn't half-bad. //SJ
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
> Hi, let me share a status update about the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia
> technical spaces, especially targeted to people not familiar with this CoC
> and/or Wikimedia
Hi, let me share a status update about the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia
technical spaces, especially targeted to people not familiar with this CoC
and/or Wikimedia technical spaces.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
The CoC drafting phase was completed yesterday [0], 18 months after
18 matches
Mail list logo