User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/Working Group Communications Process/Wikipedia Education Working Group - Communications Processes

=Debate on Specific Sections= Please specify which section of the proposal you are addressing.

Article VI, External communications
This is too important to be left to the discretion of the group. The only acceptable method to communicate with the WP community as a whole is on-wiki. The only question is where, and, given our focus, this should be WP space on enWP, (The alternative is somewhere on meta, or a wiki of our own, but general opinions at enWP are tending to encourage concentration on enWP, which is the place editors normally look.)   DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be true that on WP is the best way to reach the WP community, but I suspect that professors may prefer another method, and campus ambassadors may prefer something else. I think giving the task forces working with those groups the flexibility to use whatever methods are best for their audience is better than a top down approach. Pjthepiano (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

=General Feedback and Questions= Please use this section to give any general feedback or to ask any questions you may have.

Q1 If deliberations are by voice within the task force, are there requirement to keep records? If they are by text with the group as a whole, should it be a method that leaves records? Should the records normally be public? (I ask these questions because these are the questions which have arisen at other groups at WP.  DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Article IV, Section 8 of the Working Group Rules, Task Forces are required to provide regular updates about their work on their WP pages. So, for example, a Task Force may choose to use GoogleDocs to flesh out ideas and have internal deliberations, but they should keep the rest of the Working Group informed of what they're up to. As for the Working Group's deliberations, yes, debates (like this one) will, if these guidelines are adopted, take place on WP talk pages. Pjthepiano (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Q2 Are the task forces and indeed the entire working group -- so large we   need rules this elaborate, especially especially  within task force  groups of 3 or  3 or 4 people?? (I recognize I'm new to these discussions, but I am surprised by the extent of detail thought necessary--I recall the unfortunate results of the over-elaborate working rules at Citizendium--and the general success of less formal methods on WP.  DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we don't need elaborate rules, but I'm not sure these guidelines are elaborate. We're basically trying to ensure that Task Forces are communicating with the Working Group in a uniform manner and that full Working Group deliberations are orderly and timely. Are there specific sections that you think are too elaborate? Pjthepiano (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment The communications guidelines should ideally be inclusive of all participants and therefore should not include provisions that decrease the likelihood of some from being able to participate. Academic conferences can sometimes involve travel and commitments that would make a three day window for voting too short. While I appreciate that time is an important constraint for overall work, balanced participation should also be considered important. I therefore suggest that a five day voting window should be preferred in all but the most urgent cases.DStrassmann (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to allowing 5 days for folks to vote, but the trouble is that the voting period is established by the Working Group Rules (Article V, Section 4), not by the communications guidelines. I suggest waiting until the voting period for the Rules concludes. If it passes then you can suggest amending the rules. If it doesn't then it will be referred back to our Task Force anyway and we can amend it if there is consensus. Pjthepiano (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of a better example for why the rules are too elaborate: the need to go through a process like Pj specifies to accommodate a change that DS suggests. If we want to change the 3 days to longer, and I agree we should do so, we could do it by establishing consensus whatever way is convenient. The only way this is different form WP consensus in the usual sense is that we do need to actually get something accomplished. Perhaps it would help to have a way to avoid splintering this sort of discussion. Perhaps weekly conference calls of some nature.   DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the communications guidelines in their current form are fine. Like DGG I was initially surprised at their formality but I think it's necessary given that this is not a group of Wikipedians (for whom a pointer to a talk page might be enough). There are people on the WG with limited time and with limited experience at using wikis for debate; it's an acquired skill, and we didn't select the WG members for that skill, so we need to be clear what constitutes acceptable communication. Re 5 days vs. 3 days: I see Diana's point, but I think the topics at hand will be under discussion prior to any voting period, and usually it's possible even at a conference to send a short note requesting a day or so extension. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Diana and I spoke at the end of the meeting on Sunday and we agreed that given our tight timeline, 3 day voting periods are sufficient. Since her objection is withdrawn and no other issues are unresolved, I move that the Working Group adopt these guidelines. If within 3 days no one has requested a recorded vote, the guidelines will be considered adopted. I'll send an email to let everyone know. Pjthepiano (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks great to me! Hopefully we'll be able to adopt these asap. Thanks, PJ! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)