Re OKeyes "Switching authorisation and prioritisation over to the editors completely ignores readers, and assumes that editors will act outside their own/interests to ensure that reader-specific features do get some traction;" I'm not convinced that the community would want to ignore readers, I'm aware that many editors are motivated by the desire to see their work read. But I could accept a compromise with part of the development budget being ringfenced for initiatives proposed and prioritised by the community.
Re Gerard "the community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our community more friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy project and endorsed by the board." I took part in the Strategy project, and I agree with some of what came out of it, especially the bit about making our community more open. But just because some of us took part in the Strategy exercise doesn't mean that we can't usefully comment now. Nor does a strategy of being nicer mean that every development intended to achieve that will actually do so, or indeed be the best way to do so. I'm pretty confident that if the community was to prioritise potential developments as to whether they would make things friendlier and easier for the sort of newbies that we want, then wikilove would be a long way from the top of the list. The GLAM sector is a case in point, reading http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2011/10/building-better-fishing-pole-how.htmlI don't get the impression that the ability to give each other kittens would make Commons as attractive as Flickr for museums to upload image collections. Developments to match flickr's "robust tagging and search tools" would, but what chance is there of us getting IT resources for that? WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
