Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Interview



← Back to Interview

Discuss this story

  • Thanks SJ for responding. It's too bad other trustees were not able to comment by "press time." I'm not sure what the post-publication etiquette for this might be, but I would really like to see more complete answers from SJ (or others) to the questions posed. Nathan T 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, it wasn't that much their fault - the time was quite short. Significant content changes to Signpost pages should be avoided after publiation, but note that another, somewhat related interview has been conducted with Sj and is planned to appear in the next issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the 'press time' comment. I've been talking w/ HaeB about doing an inteview about MR for some time; the responses are mine alone. The questions were not posed to a wider group. Which questions do you feel need more complete answers? I'm also not sure on publication etiquette, but would be happy to have a more free-form ongoing discussion at m:Talk:Wikimedia affiliation models, where you can see input from others who have worked on these movement roles issues over the past year. – SJ +
  • movement roles seems like a terrible name. Why not something that gives people some idea of what we are talking about, like authorized group? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of movement roles is much broader than the issue of recognized groups. It also addressed issues such as the need for a chapters council, a contributors council, and a global requests committee; the need for clearer standards for accountability, transparency and committee work; and areas where there are confusing overlaps between the roles of different entities (including in forming partnerships and in fundraising and funds dissemination). – SJ + 20:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]