User:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/Wikipedia Community Engagement Process/Meeting II

Status as of the end of the Chicago meeting
The working group reviewed a draft RfC at the Chicago meeting on September 22-23, 2012. That draft is posted here, and is available for editing by all members of the working group.

There are two natural places for discussion of the RfC to take place: the talk page of the RfC, and the task force pages. I propose that the task force uses the task force pages for our internal discussions about the RfC; if we don't do this, the boundary between the task force and the whole working group will dissolve. One of the goals of having task forces is to limit the involvement required by others in the working group; I believe the task force should do the initial review of the content of the RfC and suggested changes, and approach the working group with a recommended version.

I propose that we (the task force):
 * edit the RfC directly where we feel the edit is not controversial;
 * maintain a list of discussion points on this page for possibly controversial changes to the RfC;
 * reach a consensus by discussion on this page with regard to the controversial issues;
 * create a version of the RfC that reflects those discussions, and post to the Google Group recommending that version for adoption.

Any problems with this approach? I'm going to go ahead and start reviewing the edits that have been made since Sunday morning now, but will first notify the CEP task force by email of this page. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion points
Please create subsections here for each point that might need discussion.

Scope -- "research into HE/WP interaction"
Is there consensus for this sentence: "Support will include systematic and sustained promotion of peer-reviewed research of the interaction between higher education and Wikipedia though their knowledge missions"? I recall Bob advocating this, and I support it myself, but do we all feel it's in our declared scope? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether clear on this. Does this mean we will conduct this research, or just support it? However, I do support the new body being a vehicle for in-depth research on the Ed/Wiki intersection.  Maybe just needs to be more clearly worded?  The Interior  (Talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to remove this as being similar to the editor resources -- something the new organization will quite possibly wish to support but may not choose to. I'm going to cut it in the interests of simplification and will see how strong the desire is to reinstate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope -- access to journals and conferences
Richard J added this to scope: "will seek to provide editors free access to academic resources such as scholarly books, journals, and conferences". I'm opposed to putting this in; I think it's possible but it's a tactical decision that we can't specify so early on, and isn't by any means guaranteed to be a priority of the new organization. Others have commented both pro and con. Can we get a task force consensus on this point before taking it to the WG? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm supportive of this in general, but as an EdCorp priority in the RfC, I'm not sure. Mike Cline raised the point that journal access for Ambassadors would be very desirable, perhaps even necessary, to vet student work that uses paywalled sourcing.  But does including it in the RfC serve any purpose?  On one hand, it might build goodwill with community members, but I'm leery including it for that reason (we should persuade by argument, not by including perks).  Personally, I see a partner project between EdCorp and the Wikipedia Library in the future, but not a current priority.  The Interior  (Talk) 20:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cut this; see note at the RfC talk page for rationale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moving to RfC talk page
It's apparent the discussion is moving over to the RfC talk page; no reason to fight that. I'll response to a couple of points here but we should post further comments there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)