The Board did not even consider to apologize for the rushed interference of WMF staff on de:MediaWiki:Common.js which caused so much trouble in the last days? No empathy for German Wikimedians who feel completely overruled and locked out from maintaining its display and implementing community consensus, a long established procedure btw.? No urge on WMF staff to implement policies on who should use superprotect and when in order to maintain our display the best, together? By just telling us that they did what they had to do and would even repeat it identically (without warnings, discussions, or anything) just in order to remove some bad JavaScript code which was not covered by community consensus either and hence would have been removed by local administrators anyway, you most likely will lose much more trust there and globally which cannot be the goal you wanted to achieve. Personally, I know that superprotect can be helpful in certain circumstances because I had to deal with JavaScript abuse on Common.js'es as a Wikimedia steward from time to time. That is why I support creating a tool which prevents inexperienced admins from maintaining our display. But does that necessarily be rushed which will leave an impression of attacking the community by interfering in their originated responsibilities although this was not intended? Without any idea which groups from now on will maintain the display (crats? stewards? on consensus? on WMF instruction), or does WMF staff wants to maintain all Commons.js, Vector.js, Monobook.js, etc. on all 900 wikis alone? Some clarifications are needed in order to solve this problem together. And that should be our goal: working together to make Wikimedia projects are more welcome place for readers, authors, and anyone.
Cheers, Martin 2014-08-14 15:42 GMT+02:00 Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevre...@wikimedia.org>: > Hi all, > > Some of you have asked the Board and its individual members for feedback. > Some of us are already in conversation with you or are planning to answer > on different pages. This is our general common statement: > > The Board supports the decision to protect the Media Viewer roll out. Our > platform powers a top-5 website. We need operational protocols that are > consistent with this position. This includes making improvements, rather > than a tendency towards reverting to the status quo. > > At the Board meeting before Wikimania, Lila laid out her strategy to put > in place best practices for product development. We will communicate > sooner, we will prioritize smarter, we will test more, and we will achieve > better outcomes. Her vision is to involve the community at each step of > product development, including more structured feedback stages and reviews. > We endorse this vision. > > We realize that there is concern about the superprotect user right and how > it affects power balance and influence on content and administration. We > recognize the concern that we need to explain and introduce our measures > better. However, stability of the platform is necessary as we seek to > improve our sites, and, for that reason, we support the creation of this > tool. We also understand that with more robust rollout plans and better > staged community feedback - as Lila envisions - the tool should rarely be > used. > We urge you to focus on specific improvements you'd like to see in the > Media Viewer and the roll-out process. Lila intends to incorporate that > feedback as she plans to improve Media Viewer and the process for future > product roll outs. > The Wikimedia Foundation needs to be in a position to make software and > configuration changes for which it is responsible. We expect restrictions > of MediaWiki code-level editing to be a temporary step to enable us to move > forward with improvements. As we say, Media Viewer should be improved; our > procedures to date have not yet met the high standards we want to set for > ourselves. Lila wants to address both now, and we need to give her the > space to do so. She has our full support and confidence as she tackles this > tough challenge. > > On behalf of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees > > Jan-Bart de Vreede > Chair > Board of Trustees > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
