User talk:MF-Warburg/SisProjCom draft

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a very nice synthesis of discussions so far.

ad2 might address the issue of "helping [NPP] through the proposal process" -- how the committee could help set guidelines and provide feedback over time, not just review at a fixed point in time whether a proposal was 'good enough'.

Designing a new project is hard - if parts of the proposal overlap with existing projects or are not quite neutral, and could be reframed in a way that make for a great project -- or that carve off 80% of the original idea into a great neutral project, and leave 20% for a non-WM project.

The same holds for integrating an existing project, if it has slightly different norms, standards, licensing.

The same holds again for integrating a new portal or wikiproject or group of content/editors into an existing project -- if imported all at once, or approached in a way that is different from existing use of that project and a bit orthogonal to existing policy.

SJ talk  23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ad 2 is meant to give an answer to "2) how can existing projects be supported". But I agree that that the committee would need to be involved in giving feedback to proposals or altering proposals. I already tried to include this in the "new projects policy" in that there would be discussions about the proposed projects, during which everyone can share their ideas about the proposed project and its exact shape and scope. So that a proposal is not simply reviewed at some time and then rejected because the exact outline was not acceptable to the committee. Additionally, the 30 days and 1 year limits are meant as deadlines for the committee to finally do something if it is very inactive about a proposal; not as "time before the committee acts". --MF-W 00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Perhaps something simple like "existing projects are encouraged to reflect on what they need in terms of community or software tools, whether they would benefit from merging with other projects, and whether they are having issues with monolingualism, which they can raise with the committee on a regular basis (every year?)"
That way projects such as commons or wikispecies or old-wikisource or meta that have a certain neurotic discussion every so often about whether they are one or many projects / whether they should have separate language portals or separate language-projects, could raise it in a more organized way and benfit from similar discussions elsewhere. The one language-related area that seems to combine both langcom and sisprojcom themes is projects that never ask for new languages because they got stuck; or that don't have a good way to deal with new languaegs [see wiktinoary] because of missing tools. SJ talk  01:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Interim committee membership[edit]

I think any new committee could be set up this way - someone who wants it to happen defines an interim committee which defines spaecs for work (lists, channels), starts up its processes, finalizes a charter and picks a long-term way of chosing members; then proposes the essential bits of this to the Board for approval. If there is a Board liaison in the initial group, s/he can appoint the interim committee; else it could be any active participant in the startup process. [groups don't need any sort of approval to get to work, after all; though it doesn't hurt in getting others to follow the group's recommendations.] SJ talk  01:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sister Projects Committee/Draft charter etc.[edit]

I've removed the {{merge}} template and added some links to the pages where parts from here were used. I'm very happy to see that this draft could be of use, but still I'd prefer to have my most glorious and complete proposal ;-) here in one part to look up things :-) --MF-W 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)