Talk:Community petition

Petition cross-posting locations

1. English Wikipedia Geo.plrd 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Has the decision been formally taken with a vote? Is it known if anybody opposed or everybody was in favour? Were all the members present and voted? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those things would be good to know, wouldn't they? Durova 04:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I guess I'll have to file a OTRS ticket :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I managed to catch Jan-Bart on IRC who kindly answered our question. All the members were present (Frieda not in person and not constantly) and in favor. I prefer to fully quote his answer as it's probably better:

“ All the trustees took part in the meeting, Frieda did not take part as much as she could have because she was unfortunately unable to attend our meeting, but she was involved online. With regards to disagreement. There was a healthy discussion on all parts, but there was/is no board members who does not agree with this outcome. Overall a very positive process, which we can stand behind ”

I must empathize that it shouldn't (I think) be taken as a formal statement, but at least we have something :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Volunteer Council

I dislike the fact that the volunteer council is worked into this petition. I didn't support the volunteer council, and I don't care that the board voted against it. I only care about the board restructuring which seems like a major power play. In light of that, I felt that I had to qualify my signature to note that I didn't support the volunteer council. Hopefully someone will rewrite this petition to remove that part, and then I can remove my qualification. Swatjester 04:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While I didn't specified it in my vote, I echo Swatjester. The Volunteer concil is (IMHO) a bad idea, but this is on an entirely different scale. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote??

imho this should be turned into a vote - petitions only support one side of a story. 203.59.179.232 08:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue?

I think I cannot sign right now, since the given text is unclear to me what it opposes exactly.

• The rejection of VC resolution? - I conform with Mike Snow's explanation and no problem on their rejection. (Said on the section above)
• Lack of previous public discussion on re-construction? Well, I am greatly concerned about that and not welcome of such lack of communication.
• And the outcome of that resolution? Hmmmm but honestly *at that moment* I have no clear standpoint without giving any intensive thought to that. I've read it but it is not the time for me to address a clear opposition, and I am not sure I'd like to call the announced composition "disrespect of the community".

So, I won't sign at this moment, since I don't want to oppose the idea which I wouldn't oppose necessarily. Along with the concern of VC rejection, I'd rather recommend to re-word this petition. It would just come from language barrier of mine, and very clear for the native English people, but I say my English is not so bad, so I presume not many signatures would be collected from the whole of the community with the current petition wording. It is at least for me as a second language learner too unclear, and for me as a community member too wide to sign up. --Aphaia 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Volunteeer Council everyone is talking about? ..--Cometstyles 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

separate project petitions

As I have mentioned on w:Wikipedia talk:Community petition, I dont think it is appropriate to run this petition on each separate projects. It should be translated here, but all signatures collated on meta, as this is a meta issue. It would be more appropriate to initiate a Village Pump thread on each project to let them know about this petition. I have also nominated s:Wikisource:Community petition for speedy deletion. John Vandenberg 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)