On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" <pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not." > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I remember was that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members came together and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and asked the WMF to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a basic project value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying to solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly address that problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it seems to have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of complaints about that problem since.
I don't agree with that assessment, but it's possible I'm missing some elements of the process. Philippe, any chance you could full in the summary with a few specifics, and maybe some links? Pete _______________________________________________ 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>
