User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

How can I help you?

I am currently the Community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation and the volunteers of all the communities supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. This is a temporary contract, following the expiration of which the role will pass to another. My goal is to increase communication between community members and staff. Do you have questions? Do you have ideas? Please let me know. You can leave me a note here or e-mail me at liaison

wikimedia.org. (The e-mail goes with the job and will remain viable even after my contract expires.)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

2012

Season's Greetings & Happy New Year. History2007 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D And to you as well, History2007. (Boy, wouldn't that be something to see in person? Of course, maybe you have, but things are not so grand around here!) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in FAville

Hi. I'm not quite sure of your role here, but I've mentioned you as someone who might be the most appropriate person to get an RfC off the ground.

The subject of the RfC is being batted about at WT:FAC#FAC 2012, and I suggested that the FA leadership needs to change via an election and much edit-conflicting has ensued. User:Wehwalt and some others support this call. The incumbents mostly not. This is of course all tied up with the civility mess that's landed at the arbitration board. One the questions there is has the hostility around FA driven anyone off, and I've encountered a user who's about to leave over this. User:Lecen from Brazil has written about eight FA on Brazilian topics (Empire of Brazil...) and has lost interest in ENWP over poor treatment at FAC. Not losing him would seem to fall within your remit. There's a longish talk with him on my talk page. Thank you. Alarbus (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie, I would second the request for your involvement, as you have the respect of many people who frequent FAC without being one of those people yourself :) I don't agree with everything that Alarbus says above: the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the ArbCom case, other than that a lot of people are participating in both, and Lecen has in part brought it on himself through a lack of willingness to work with certain people. However, if you would like to look in on the discussion and comment, or, as requested above, help to formulate the RfC, you would be more than welcome! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alarbus, Dana. :) (And thank you, Dana! :D)

Just to clarify what I do as a contractor, my role here is to facilitate communication between the Wikimedia Foundation and the various members of the communities involved in pulling toward our common mission. Some of what I do includes answering questions about the Foundation and putting people in touch with Foundation staff, making sure that the Foundation is aware of important events going on in the community, helping staff find community members to assist with matters beyond their purview (such as those related to content or governance of the projects), and helping coordinate conversations between staff and volunteers. (For instance, I put a ton of time recently into meta:Talk:Terms of use.)

Because my role is to aid in relations between the communities and the WMF, I don't have any particular "authority" within any community, and, in fact, somewhat less than your average volunteer when I am in this role. Since the WMF does not control content or govern users, my hands are sometimes tied in what I can do. For instance, if somebody contacts me as a liaison to point out a problem in the article, I have to find a volunteer to work with them. I can't do it myself, even if I switch over to my volunteer account.

Since this is a matter of internal governance, while I might be able to help in some clerical capacity, I wouldn't be able to moderate an RfC and I'm not sure if it would be in scope of my contract to draft such an RfC--I'd have to check. Whether or not I could help there, I think, might depend on what you have in mind when you say "get an RfC off the ground." I can certainly take a look at the discussion and see if I have any input. Just let me know what you have in mind.

As far as User:Lecen is concerned, I'll send him an email. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood your WMF role. I've been all over WMF level things since Sue Gardner's UK video. Perhaps you could be involved here as MRG? And thanks for anything you can do to retain Lecen. Alarbus (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) I've weighed in at the talk page; Dana's suggestion that I might work with Mike seems like it could be a good one. I don't know much about the processes, but I should be able to determine if the issues are being presented in a clear way to others like me, to help make sure that the wider community can give input. Certainly, I can do that in my volunteer time. It's perfectly appropriate, though, for me to write Lecen as community liaison, and I'll do that now. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll go see what you've said. I've nothing against Mike; don't know anything about him. I'm just after uninvolved input. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRG, since you are much loved and respected all over the Wiki, your offer to help out Mike is much appreciated; the input of someone as respected outside of FAC as you are, along with someone within FAC who knows the issues and history, will hopefully lead to a better RFC. I've never seen anyone get much by you, but will point out that Alarbus (as a person with limited knowledge of FAC) might not be aware of Lecen's background at FAC. You can search the WT:FAC archives, there is more at WP:TFAR that is not archived, or read some of his FACs to see how combative they are, or I can dig up and point you to the number of times delegates have recused from his FACs because he is so combative. He doesn't respond well to constructive criticism, he's dug himself in to a place where few reviewers will go near his FACs, and it's unfortunate that Alarbus is making proposals and recommendations around cases that aren't representative of the many writers and reviewers working to produce FAs. I'm glad you might be able to reach out to Lecen in your WMF function, but for the purposes of the RFC, Alarbus is not fully apprised of why Lecen in particular is seeking a scorched earth policy at FAC. I also like Alarbus's neutral section heading here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sandy. :)

Just for the record, my letter to Lecen wasn't written from a perspective that he was shabbily treated, only that the experience was frustrating for him. In a nutshell, I noted that he can contribute content for readers without going through the featured process, if he prefers, as readers find value in articles either way, although I also noted that I do find featured content and the featured content process valuable. I also pointed out that he can take part in shaping community processes, if he doesn't like the way something is done. I encouraged him to continue as an editor and thanked him for his articles, if he does not. I emailed him solely to keep the drama quotient down, whether people agreed with him or not. You know how these things can go.

I'm sorry if he's been combative. While as you know most of my work is on copyright, I do know from that how much harder processes are to complete when contributors aren't cooperative.

I'll be happy to give Mike some input. Alarbus, I feel pretty sure that I'm neutral here with respect to the FA process, and I do know Mike. I think an RfC will be in good hands with his drafting. If perchance I do see something that seems like it could be made more neutral, I have all confidence Mike would be open to that, but I really doubt it would be an issue. I expect the most value I could offer would be in going "Wait a minute; I don't know what that means." :D RfCs being open to the entire community, it'd be important to present anything in such a way that people who aren't familiar with the process can still follow the arguments. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, MRG-- between the two of you, FAC is in as good of hands as possible (which is all we can hope for on a project where anyone can edit and everyone has an opinion :) BTW, Moonriddengirl was much more poetic ... I hope I won't be persuaded to post over here instead ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like Moonriddengirl better as well. :D Too bad I couldn't carry it over! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems we've lost Lecen. I believe this was salvagable until the above attack. I chalk it up to long-term hostility on the part of Sandy and some others dug-in there. I remain optimistic though that things can change: Wehwalt for FA Director. The only question that the FA RfC needs to pose is when are the elections. Thanks for trying. Alarbus (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page

Hi, Maggie -- would you take a look at my post at FAC from the point of view of an editor who doesn't participate in FAC, and give some feedback there (in one or other of your personae) if necessary? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm off work, so I think I can do it in this one, for consistency. I'll just note that I'm off duty. And that was fast! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback seems necessary from me there. You seem to have captured the issues very well, and it looks like a good approach to me. Personally, I like the idea of giving it a few extra days for the reasons others have expressed there. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the extra time and have posted to that effect. Thanks for taking a look.

You know, I sometimes wonder if there's a role for something like a managed RfC. If (and it's a big if) you had an editor regarded as neutral by a large majority of the participants, you could try a process in which a roadmap for discussion was laid out and agreed to, and during which comments that were felt not to follow that roadmap were moved to a subsidiary page in order to minimize the work to be done by those who want to participate without following every ancillary discussion. I wonder if that would bring back editors like Brian Boulton and Ealdgyth, neither of whom want to comment at WT:FAC in the current atmosphere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi, Maggie, on a more cheerful matter, may I ask if there's been any progress on the JSTOR thing? I had sent you and Philippe a note on how it can be done for one person; I had not received a reply but didn't want to push the matter because of the holidays. Should I send another email? Or just await events? My experience is that if you await events, though, they don't tend to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I haven't been part of any communications about it. I'll "bump" Philippe. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were cc'd on all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I meant subsequent. I don't know if there's been any progress as I haven't been part of any communications after yours. :) I've bumped Philippe; hopefully, you'll get feedback soon. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've checked with Philippe, and evidently Sue's work on meta:Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Recommendations is relevant here. The fund dissemination materials she's drawing together includes, in her third recommendation, "Expanded grantmaking to individual volunteers, to provide support for work that requires it, e.g. reimbursement of travel expenditures, lending or purchasing of equipment and literature, provision of t-shirts and event materials." Philippe says he is looking into funding for the JSTOR idea, but that these kinds of requests may wind up being held as the larger issue is decided.

From my volunteer standpoint, I think it's a pretty exciting idea. I know some other groups have been interested in obtaining access to resources. Wouldn't it be grand if we could make more of these available? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]