Thanks for the update, Phoebe, and best wishes. Andreas
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- > update > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 20:26 > Hi Andreas, > > Well, as promised a report from the board working group was > presented > to the full board (including information on the draft spec > that you > linked below, which is open for comment but certainly not > set in > stone), the matter was discussed at the March meeting as > one of the > many items on the agenda, and after the meeting we have > been > discussing a board resolution/next steps. Pretty typical. > The minutes > for the march meeting should be out soon. > > ( Incidentally, a general note on board process for those > interested > -- guidelines for board deliberations were passed in July, > and can be > seen here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Board_deliberations > > The upshot is that a resolution takes three weeks minimum > from the > time of being proposed to passing, except in > extraordinary/emergency > cases. Two weeks of discussion, then a week of voting, and > that does > not account for extra time spent writing various drafts or > discussing, > or delays caused by exhausted committee chairs :) The time > period > tries to take into account the schedules of 10 very busy > people, at > least a handful of whom are traveling at any given time, as > well as > allow for enough time to seriously debate each resolution > and take > care with the wording. > > So that, in a nutshell, is why sometimes things seem to > take forever! ) > > -- phoebe > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Hi Phoebe, > > > > What is the current status with regard to the > recommendations from the > > 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > > > From what I can see, a proposal based on the study was > generated at > > > > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter > > > > and the proposal was subsequently presented and > discussed at the Board > > Meeting in Berlin, in late March. > > > > How did that go? Any further developments? > > > > Best, > > Andreas > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > >> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study > of Controversial Content -- update > >> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.w...@gmail.com>, > "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54 > >> Hi Phoebe, > >> > >> Thank you very much for the update. > >> > >> Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and > I am glad > >> there is some work being done on them. > >> > >> Do let us know again how things are progressing! > >> > >> Best, > >> Andreas > >> > >> --- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> > >> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia > Study of > >> Controversial Content -- update > >> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen...@yahoo.com> > >> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35 > >> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, > >> > Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please > give us an > >> update > >> > on the activities of > >> > > the working group looking into the > >> recommendations > >> > resulting from the 2010 > >> > > Wikimedia Study of Controversial > Content? > >> > > > >> > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are > there > >> any > >> > plans or discussions about > >> > > implementing any of the > recommendations? > >> > > > >> > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066 > >> > > > >> > > Andreas > >> > > >> > Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the > slow > >> reply, > >> > I've been > >> > away on holiday the last couple of days and > have not > >> been > >> > online. > >> > > >> > Also, my apologies for not posting an update > before > >> you > >> > asked. Things > >> > have been slowly moving but as yet no > conclusions. > >> > > >> > Here is what has happened since I sent my > last > >> update: > >> > > >> > Over the winter holidays the membership of > the > >> working > >> > group changed > >> > due to the workload of other board > committees. > >> Jan-Bart and > >> > Kat > >> > stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy > and > >> Bishakha; > >> > I am still > >> > involved and agreed to chair the group. Of > course any > >> > recommendations > >> > for statements or resolutions will go to the > whole > >> board. > >> > The Harrises > >> > are still involved as consultants on a > >> "paid-as-needed" > >> > basis; if we > >> > want them to do any further research or > facilitation > >> they > >> > are > >> > available. > >> > > >> > In my last message, I wrote that "The working > group > >> will be > >> > examining > >> > the recommendations more closely, soliciting > Board > >> member > >> > feedback on > >> > each of the recommendations to a greater > degree than > >> there > >> > was time > >> > for in the in-person meeting, working with > the > >> community > >> > and finally > >> > making a report to the full Board. The > working group > >> is > >> > expected to > >> > recommend next steps, including providing > fuller > >> analysis > >> > of the > >> > recommendations." > >> > > >> > We did the first part of this (board member > feedback); > >> and > >> > are > >> > currently working on the analysis part. As > you know > >> the > >> > various > >> > recommendations fall into three kinds: > philosophical, > >> > community-facing > >> > (such as changing specific community > practices), and > >> > technical. I > >> > asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time > looking > >> into > >> > the > >> > recommendations that require technical work > (7 & > >> 9)* so > >> > that we can > >> > have more information about what's feasible > and > >> possible, > >> > and what it > >> > would take on the wmf/tech side and the > community > >> side. > >> > This does not > >> > mean they're developing these features now; > it means > >> I > >> > asked for > >> > possible specifications (since I am > unfamiliar with > >> what it > >> > would take > >> > in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the > working group > >> can > >> > make a more > >> > informed recommendation. The WMF won't > develop > >> anything > >> > without a > >> > board request. > >> > > >> > You may notice that the "working with the > community" > >> part > >> > has been > >> > largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully > reading** > >> all > >> > of the > >> > public discussion to date, the working group > has not > >> > actively worked > >> > with the community (at large) or specific > community > >> > members. This is > >> > because I wanted to first focus on getting > all of the > >> board > >> > feedback > >> > and getting background information, and that > has > >> taken > >> > longer than I > >> > hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion > that > >> any > >> > changes can be > >> > made in how this organization works with > >> controversial > >> > content (or > >> > even happily keeping the status quo) without > >> community > >> > discussion > >> > (which there has been a lot of), consensus > (which the > >> > recommendations > >> > were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not > yet > >> emerged), > >> > and hard > >> > work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages > along > >> with > >> > commons policy > >> > pages as a good place to discuss the issue; > and people > >> can > >> > still help > >> > the working group by working on > summarization, > >> analysis, > >> > and procedure > >> > advice for going forward. > >> > > >> > I'll say that the board does not yet have a > formal > >> position > >> > on this > >> > whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much > about > >> that > >> > for fear of > >> > it being *taken* as an official board > position. > >> > > >> > You may read this message and think "ok, > they're > >> doing > >> > something" or > >> > you may read this message and think "the > board has > >> totally > >> > lost the > >> > way/not done their job on this issue" or you > may not > >> care > >> > :) Either > >> > way, feel free to write me or us, publicly > or > >> privately. > >> > Our next step > >> > as a working group will be a report to the > board, > >> likely at > >> > the march > >> > meeting. > >> > > >> > -- phoebe > >> > > >> > > >> > * recs 7 & 9: > >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options > >> > ** I have also been working on summarizing > all this > >> > discussion; a big job. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to > phoebe.ayers > <at> gmail.com * > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
