jayvdb at gmail
Jun 24, 2008, 4:31 AM
Post #15 of 41
(1028 views)
Permalink
|
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global
>> user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a policy
>> governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights on
>> Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different
>> global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each
>> policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control these
>> new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize the
>> proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same elsewhere.
>> After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on meta
>> delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella policy
>> can be agreed upon.
>
> Yes, this is a good idea and it is at the next generalization level.
> And I'll comment it at the talk page.
>
> However, we have one more step above which we didn't solve: Every
> global policy has to be discussed at the local projects *before* the
> final discussion at Meta.
>
> This may be achieved by making supporting documents for every
> proposer: Where to announce it at local projects. Also, every proposal
> should have a summary which may be quickly translated to other
> languages. Every local project should summarize their input in
> English.
One project, one vote.
That sounds great.
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of
their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so
in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Discussion on the meta talk page would naturally be open for anyone.
> Every proposal (including this one) should have some time frame. Let's
> say, 15 days for the initial discussion, 5 days for announcing it at
> local projects, 15 days for discussion at local projects, 5 days for
> summarizing discussions at local projects and giving comments back to
> the Meta, 15 days for further discussion and 15 days for voting. Of
> course, according to specific circumstances, some of those numbers may
> be changed.
>
> This is 70 days for every proposal. It may look like a long period and
> even like a bureaucratic procedure, but I really don't see any other
> solution for getting the input from every project. Wikimedia community
> is a complex one ("something more" than this list and Meta) and we
> have to find a way how to deal with that. Dealing with people at one
> project is much different than dealing with people at 700+ projects.
> If we want to have a functional global community, we have to work more
> organized and with longer time frames. And we have to learn how to
> communicate with each other.
>
> If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.
A fixed timeframe is probably necessary, however 70 days is _way_ too long.
7 days to discuss on the meta talk page and and formulate the
proposal; 7 days for local projects to develop a response; 7 days for
the responses to be collated onto meta. 21 days max.
A steward should probably to responsible for flicking the switch to
say that a proposal is live after the first seven days, and again a
steward should probably be the one to flick the switch and decide the
outcome. They judgment should be trusted rather than requiring that
the process is run by stopwatches.
In reality, most projects will have started discussing a proposal long
before the proposal page can even be created on meta (they are primed,
and bursting with ideas, having heard about it on the grapevine) and
most projects will continue to discuss it to death until the eleventh
hour of the 21st day. Projects that don't get motivated quickly
probably don't care enough to be involved, or are unlikely to be
affected.
If the proposals are listed at a common location on meta, 'crats of
all projects can watchlist the page, and tick "E-mail me when a page
on my watchlist is changed" in their prefs on meta. The 'crats should
be responsible for ensuring that the project makes up its
collaborative mind, in its own project space, in its own way. Local
members will no doubt 'assist' the 'crats at every turn.
As each local discussion gets underway, a link to it could be added to
the meta proposal page to indicate that the ball is rolling on the
local project.
By restricting the voting stage to only 'crats, the good folk who
facilitate on meta will more readily be able to identify which
projects haven't submitted a response, in order that they can reach
out and attempt to solicit a response from those communities.
--
John
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
1
