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
<mailto:hfor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Halfaker
<aaron.halfa...@gmail.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l