RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. However, we split into sub-committees while we were still a functioning group. The subject recruitment sub-committee and newsletter sub-committees are performing vital functions still.
I never stated that research recruiting needs RCOM approval. I definitely said that it "ought to" have RCOM approval. There are also more than two "review coordinators" (not not "reviewers") -- it's just that DarTar and I have accepted the burden of distributing work. When people are busy, we often coordinate the reviews ourselves. I welcome your edits to make it clear that review is optional. As you might imagine, I have plenty of work to do and I appreciate your good-faith collaboration on improving our research documentation. -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> The review process occurs in all instances where review coordination is >> requested (by emailing me or DarTar). There's only been one case where a >> review took more than 2 weeks and that was because the researcher didn't >> respond to requests for more information quickly. >> >> Nathan, I think you are mistakenly thinking that all research needs to be >> reviewed. Only research that involves the recruitment of Wikipedians as >> subjects is intended to be reviewed via RCOM's process. Only those studies >> that request it will be reviewed. >> >> -Aaron >> >> >> >> > Thanks, perhaps the confusion exists because there is so much apparent > infrastructure around the review process (including a big button that > creates a research project page, ostensibly to facilitate a review). It > might also be that communication from the former RCOM's members is > misleading; in one e-mail in this thread you say RCOM is defunct, and in > another you suggest that research recruiting Wikipedians needs RCOM's > review. > > Either there is an RCOM and it functions effectively, or nothing should or > must rely on a defunct committee to complete a defunct process. If the > committee is indeed defunct, then messaging around the review process > should be adjusted to make it clear that it is voluntary, and there are > only two reviewers acting on their own initiative. Your insistence on > having it both ways is leading to confusion, not just from me but on the > part of people proposing research projects and expecting comment from > "RCOM." > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
