- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
- As a matter of urgency, can the WG state the following:
- Was every statement on the discussion page (and archives) read, as required for a consultation?
- Why was there no active engagement?
- In excess of 85% of those commenting were against the loss of local autonomy, along with the collateral difficulties in most functionary+admin groups doing it. Why was this labelled as a risk, not an issue, and it indicated that a "balance" of loss of autonomy would act as sufficient mitigation?
- Has it been considered the likelihood of some or all local Communities not considering this binding unless and until the concerns are actively worked with?
I've still watchlisted the old Talk Pages - please start replying to every discussion (both still on the page and archived) and then resubmit the recommendations once that's done. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing feedback on the recommendations @Nosebagbear. Just a quick message: The members of the Diversity Working group have read all these comments. We also received many in Wikimania and other in-person events. There have been newer versions of the recommendations (before Tunis) that have been trying to adapt the feedback. The changes relate to looking for ways to increase community and content diversity. The new recommendations are not that specific in terms of actions to perform but more abstract and focused on the overall goals. The process is not in a formal consultation phase at the moment. I must say that it is still not clear which of the recommendations are going to become part of the final version, which will be again consulted with the communities. So in this sense, we will consider your input as we believe it is valuable. Thank you very much. --Marcmiquel (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Marcmiquel: - thank you for your response. Consultation aspects aside, there were a large number of clarification/interpretation comments, which would be heavily preferable if they were located and answered Nosebagbear (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)