Anthony, I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made this distinction clearer from the outset: 1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is what I think you are discussing; and I agree, it's very important, and it would ideally be conducted with somebody other than WMF in the driver's seat. 2. A general practice of debriefing significant projects. I consider organizational learning to be the primary benefit of this (so that mistakes are repeated less often, and practices improve); so whether it attracts any non-staff's attention is not of central importance in my view. But it *is* very important that it include reflection from high in the org chart (which was the case with the Belfer Center debrief, but not with the Media Viewer debrief).
#2 is the one I had in mind for this particular thread, but #1 is very important too. Thank you for the kind words about my participation in #1. I do think, generally, people with a good understanding of Wikimedia's history and values, but without recent organizational ties, should be included. Whether or not I'm right for the task, I'll leave aside for the moment. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it. > Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines > of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I > wouldn't bother reading their reports. > > If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start. > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Anthony, > > > > Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed > > exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. > (And > > some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts > > dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it > > aligns well with what I know. > > > > I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself > > publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like > this. > > Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it; > > but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of > all > > significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those > > doing the work in the future. > > > > What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the > > *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, > of > > course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at > > what it does over time. > > > > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Wrong link. It's here. > > > > > > > > > http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/ > > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on > Wikipediocracy > > > > that seems to cover most of the milestones. > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html > > > > > > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;> > > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>');>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Brandon and Sarah: > > > >> > > > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow > here, > > > as > > > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on > > divisive > > > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached. > > > >> > > > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and > what > > > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and > > > Flow, > > > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do > > you > > > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the > > > >> organization > > > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid > > > >> repeating > > > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each > other? > > > >> > > > >> -Pete > > > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > >> > > > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com > > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth < > > petefors...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, > > but > > > >> > > embraced? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > What would need to be different? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation > > > would > > > >> > get > > > >> > > better at asking and exploring. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, > > which > > > is > > > >> > why > > > >> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta > > talk > > > >> page, > > > >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to > find > > > out > > > >> > what editors need. > > > >> > > > > >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened > to. > > > >> There > > > >> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to > > > find > > > >> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page > > that > > > >> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're > welcome > > to > > > >> join > > > >> > the discussion." > > > >> > > > > >> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the > > > >> community > > > >> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to > > > >> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). > > People > > > >> who > > > >> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in > > > that > > > >> > thing by the Foundation. > > > >> > > > > >> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we > didn't. > > We > > > >> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good > search > > > >> was a > > > >> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they > > > would > > > >> > explain that people like white space. And so on. > > > >> > > > > >> > Sarah > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > > >> > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Anthony Cole > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > Anthony Cole > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
