Please specify which section of the proposal you are addressing.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Please specify which section of the proposal you are addressing.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)