> > Either [RCOM is] functioning or its not, surely?
Well, I explained that there are functioning sub-committees still. In other words, there are initiatives that RCOM started that are alive and successful, but we no longer coordinate as a larger group. I don't know how else to explain it. I guess you could say that RCOM is still functioning and that we no longer require/engage in group meetings. As Kerry noted earlier on, the policy as it stands [1] says that > researchers "must" obtain approval through the process described. If the > wording now needs to be changed to "ought to" then surely this requires > more consensus than your single message here? That's a proposed policy. Until it is passed by consensus, the "must" is a proposed term. I think that it should be "must", but until that consensus is reached, I'll continue to say that it "ought to". Regarding researchers stating what should be regulated, I think there is a big difference between *deciding what should be regulated* and *being involved in the discussion of *how* it should be regulated*. Hence why I welcome participation. What I'm saying is that you have a vested interest in not being regulated, but I'd still like to discuss how your activities can be regulated effectively & efficiently. Does that make sense? b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain clarity > and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I followed > up. I welcome you to raise it to them. I don't think it is worth their time, but they might disagree. But what is clear is that clarification is required - especially on the > distribution of tasks between Foundation employees, the research community > and Wikimedia editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside > this list. I think that the proposed policy on English Wikipedia does that quite well. That's why I directed people there. Also, again, I am not working on RCOM or subject recruitment as a WMF employee. I do this in my volunteer time. This is true of all of RCOM who happen to also be staff. if you want process to be more clearly documented, you also have to address people like Poitr who would rather not have processes described in detail. When you guys work out how clearly you want a process to be described, please let me know. I'm tired of re-spec'ing processes. This is the third iteration. If the policy is incorrectly described on the policy pages, then someone > from RCom (or whatever it is now called) should be the one to change this - > preferably with some discussion. Heather, that is a *proposed *policy page on English Wikipedia. It is not part of RCOM. It would render RCOM irrelevant for subject recruitment concerns. That's why I started it. I don't think that RCOM/WMF/researchers should own subject recruitment review. I think the community being studied should own it and that RCOM/WMF/researchers should participate. Also, I am not your employee. This is my volunteer time. I don't have much of it, so I focus on keeping the system running -- and it is -- and improving the system -- which is the proposal I linked to. If you want something done and other volunteers don't have time to do it. Do it yourself. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT> -Aaron On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Heather Ford <hfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfa...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> RCOM is not functioning as a complete group anymore. >>> >> > I'm a little confused why this wasn't made clear right at the beginning of > this thread e.g. when others suggested this might be the case and you > refuted them? Also, I'm not sure what 'functioning as a complete group' > actually means. Either its functioning or its not, surely? > > >> 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. >>> >> > So, does that mean that is what the policy *ought to* be now? And do you > believe that this should this be the way that the policy gets decided? > Because it isn't right now as far as I can see. As Kerry noted earlier on, > the policy as it stands [1] says that researchers "must" obtain approval > through the process described. If the wording now needs to be changed to > "ought to" then surely this requires more consensus than your single > message here? > > re. the comment that I (and the other researchers?) on this list shouldn't > be the ones to decide what the regulation should be, I disagree on two > counts. a) It seems on the one hand that you want this to be > "self-regulation" i.e. you invited researchers on this list to join R-COM > at the beginning of this thread, but that you don't think that the > researchers here should be able to determine what to regulate. I know that > you're looking for an inclusive process but you can't have it both ways: if > we are going to help regulate, then we need to at least help decide how to > regulate. b) Pine suggested a board decision on this earlier one to obtain > clarity and I supported this but it was met with silence, which is why I > followed up. > > >> 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 can understand your frustration; I really can! I know that you've done a > lot of really great, prior work on this and I don't think any of us are > saying that we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But what is > clear is that clarification is required - especially on the distribution of > tasks between Foundation employees, the research community and Wikimedia > editors. And this is *especially* true for people outside this list. > >> >>> 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. >>> >> > I'm frustrated by this response. If the policy is incorrectly described on > the policy pages, then someone from RCom (or whatever it is now called) > should be the one to change this - preferably with some discussion. I find > it frustrating that WMF employees are often the ones who make the final > policy pronouncements but then tell others to implement it. And if we don't > do the work, then we're apparently not assuming good faith. > > This is a great opportunity to rejuvenate the process; hopefully it will > eventually be seen that way :) > > Best, > Heather. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Research_recruitment > > -Aaron >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
