Big support for both the general concepts and specifics in here. Ratification by Community is critical, most logically by half of communities (or, perhaps, half of communities that formally consider ratification) and half of all editors (either by editors participating in that ratification or by active editors represented by that community) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Regarding DS consultation comments, we arbs are trying not to say too much because the consultation is intended to be an opportunity for the community to speak, not us. I personally am going to refrain from sharing my perspectives too much unless it seems like doing so will prompt further discussion or feedback from the community. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above, rather than being seen as a legitimate community endeavor. The UCOC's creation was mandated by a mostly unelected board of trustees to be eventually placed upon the community, though editors had mooted such concepts before. The editing community can suggest changes all it wants, and the WMF can incorporate some of even most of those, but it's quite clear that if the community opposed the whole idea of UCOC that wouldn't stop the WMF from establishing it, short of perhaps a FRAMBAN-like global crisis. The UCOC is not at risk of "being seen as imposed"; it is being imposed. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Arbitration report