Hello, I strongly agree with what Chris wrote. In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to talk about an issue. They say things like: * "this feels like défa vu" * "you are not constructive" * "we must look forward, not backward" * "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later" This kind of reactions do not contribute to an atmosphere in which I feel that my concerns are taken seriously. Kind regards Ziko
Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 08:57 Uhr schrieb Chris Keating < [email protected]>: > > > > Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now > over > > four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as > > such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of > > mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer > affiliated > > with the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact, plenty of the staff members > at > > the Wikimedia Foundation were hired *after* superprotect was removed. > > > > I don't think bringing up superprotect in this discussion is especially > > relevant or helpful. > > > I sort of want to agree with this, but actually I think it goes a bit > deeper. > > If you ask questions about the relationship between the WMF and the > community, sooner rather than later someone will talk about Superprotect. > If you ask any of the 1,000 people who signed the petition against > Superprotect, most of whom are still active one way or another, then > Superprotect will probably be the first thing out of their mouths, even > though it happened 6 years ago. It's sufficiently ingrained in peoples' > minds that asking these people not to talk about Superprotect is like a > British person asking someone from the USA not to talk about the Boston Tea > Party. > > In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time, > and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time. > > In part it's because people perceive there is nothing to prevent an > identical situation recurring. In some ways I think this perception is > unfair, for all the reasons you mention. But it still exists, and in part > it exists because of things the WMF has not done. The Foundation's > expectations about how it interacts with the community remain fairly > unclear and fairly undocumented, from the Board level down. I recall there > have been some written statements of how the WMF now handles product > features, though I think this didn't come the ED or less the Board. I don't > believe there was ever a written review publilshed of Superprotect, while > there are written reviews and statements lessons learned from many other > situations that had much less impact. In short, the WMF is not seen as > having put the issue to bed in a way that results in everyone involved > moving on. > > Thanks, > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
