Dario Taraborelli wrote:
>
>... due to the lack of a formal policy, the RCom has never been
> in a position to grant any kind of "definitive approval" to recruit
> participants
I appreciate that clarification, but it strictly contradicts this edit from
11 days ago:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/
All,
We’re happy to announce our fourth employee at the UK chapter – Stevie
Benton. Stevie will be taking on the communications role for the
charity. He has worked in non-profit communications for over eight years
in a variety of disciplines, including internal communications, press,
online a
Lane,
Thanks for your message:
> James: I made the edit stating the research should get approval,
> and I did that by jumping into the game and just making the edit
> based on what I read in discussion boards. I did not consider it
> to be a new requirement
For the benefit of those who haven
James,
I think I have replied consistently to your requests, both on wiki and by mail,
stressing that this is the de facto standard procedure that was introduced with
the creation of the RCom, pending a formal (as in voted) policy, and that the
expectation is for whoever runs a survey or subjec
Hi Lane,
your proposed workflow is a good description of how I would like the SR
procedure to function in an ideal world. I am not myself at the forefront of SR
discussions, but I'd definitely like to see a more streamlined process and a
better way of signaling to participants which projects ar
Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> James, I think I have replied consistently to your requests, both on wiki
> and by mail
Anyone can judge for themselves whether this is true by looking at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:FAQ
There you claimed that research approval was a mandatory pol
Hi James,
actually, I am pretty sure we did discuss the procedure which requires
endorsement (we did not call it approval), either at the extraordinary
meeting in December (related to the survey banner story) or in the RCom
mailing list in the thread related to the same story. And this is indeed
p
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> actually, I am pretty sure we did discuss the procedure which requires
> endorsement (we did not call it approval), either at the extraordinary
> meeting in December (related to the survey banner story) or in the RCom
> mailing list in the thread related to the same s
