On 08/12/2015 05:13 AM, Brian Wolff wrote:
While you're right we don't have a
"binding" policy as of yet, I don't
think this should be conflated with us having no rules.
We do have some social conventions, and sometimes these work, but they
don't always.
There have been instances (on both Wikimedia projects and other
projects) where people have explicitly used the lack of a binding policy
to justify their behavior. The experience of other projects suggests
that making the policy binding and specific helps.
As long as I can remember, there has been an informal
rule, of
"Comment on the code [or proposal], not the contributor", particularly
on the wikitech-l mailing list. Which certainly falls short of many of
the concerns that this proposal intends to address (Although that line
is included in the proposal), however I just want it to be stated that
we are not starting from a state of total anarchy.
I agree.
*Scope is too vague. This is making some people
nervous, especially
commons, who really should not feel affected by this policy at all
This has been addressed. Commons, Wikipedia, etc. are now clearly excluded.
*Unclear what is "broken". Most answers seem
to boil down to some sort
of due diligence concern in case something is happening, or "everyone
is doing it", which is rather unsatisfactory to the people asking the
question. A concise rationale for what we want to accomplish with
this, backed up with citations to other people who've dealt with
similar issues, would perhaps alleviate some concerns.
I've added such a citation. I would summarize as three reasons:
* We have had concrete violations in the past which this would have
provided a tool to address.
* It provides clear guidance (the preference is that people behave
respectfully to begin with).
* It sends a message to potential participants: "We welcome you", and
backs that with more than empty words.
*Unclear how the policy is going to be enforced (For
serious
violations), which engenders questions of if it will be enforced
fairly. The lack of specification in the enforcement section probably
means it will be enforced by the WMF, probably behind closed doors.
Will WMF be biased involving disputes where a staff member is a party.
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
Matt Flaschen