Mailing List Archive

Closing projects policy now official
Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the
policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).

Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be
listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the
next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at
the LangCom list.

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members

* * *

This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some
situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The
proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to
take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority
over the member's decision.

==Problem situation and new authority==
The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy.
Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been
adopted.

Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be
closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while
others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and
made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.

This policy tries to address this problem by:
* requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as
either valid or invalid reasons
* putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final
Board decision

The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an
advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language
proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and
Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than
opening one.

Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and
no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final
authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve
the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the
appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.

==Policy proposal==

===Types of proposals===
In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex
or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified
as one of two types:
# Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally
harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past).
#: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks,
...''
# Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial,
questionable or in another way uncommon.
#: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''

===Definition of actions===
* Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but
all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are
removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated.
* Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely
unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still
be available for external use.
* Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages,
along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]],
[[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]]
(or another site when explicitly mentioned). <small>See
[[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small>
** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function.
When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if
needed. <small>When such a software feature becomes available, files
should be exported.</small>

===Proposing===
Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done:
* The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see
above).
* If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly
mentioned in the proposal.
* When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as
soon as possible.
* A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted.
** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are.
When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a
certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia
Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are
not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of
small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual
wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason.
** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason
(usually for type 1).
** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.

===Decision===
* During a period of 30 <small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the
proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations.
* Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of
handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the
mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed),
without formal voting.
* Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its
recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.

===Proposal approved===
* For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred
to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but
common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the
content is often appropriate.
* A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and
deletion if applicable).
* Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]],
which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more
strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now
proposed for closure, were started)

===Proposal rejected===
* The wiki remains open.
* A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A
proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to
reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.

==Retroactivity==
As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current
proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under
the new policy.

==References==
<references />

==Links==
* http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of
currently closed wikis
* [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking)
* Previous proposals
** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal)
** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal)
* Other
** [[Proposals for closing projects]]
** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small,
inactive wikis]]
** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
Hi,

could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
*individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a
one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?

Lodewijk

2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>

> Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the
> policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
>
> Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be
> listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the
> next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at
> the LangCom list.
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members
>
> * * *
>
> This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some
> situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The
> proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to
> take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority
> over the member's decision.
>
> ==Problem situation and new authority==
> The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy.
> Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been
> adopted.
>
> Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be
> closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while
> others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and
> made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.
>
> This policy tries to address this problem by:
> * requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as
> either valid or invalid reasons
> * putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final
> Board decision
>
> The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an
> advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language
> proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and
> Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than
> opening one.
>
> Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and
> no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final
> authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve
> the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the
> appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.
>
> ==Policy proposal==
>
> ===Types of proposals===
> In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex
> or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified
> as one of two types:
> # Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally
> harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past).
> #: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks,
> ...''
> # Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial,
> questionable or in another way uncommon.
> #: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''
>
> ===Definition of actions===
> * Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but
> all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are
> removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated.
> * Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely
> unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still
> be available for external use.
> * Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages,
> along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]],
> [[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]]
> (or another site when explicitly mentioned). <small>See
> [[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small>
> ** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function.
> When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if
> needed. <small>When such a software feature becomes available, files
> should be exported.</small>
>
> ===Proposing===
> Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done:
> * The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see
> above).
> * If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly
> mentioned in the proposal.
> * When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as
> soon as possible.
> * A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted.
> ** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are.
> When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a
> certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia
> Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are
> not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of
> small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual
> wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason.
> ** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason
> (usually for type 1).
> ** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.
>
> ===Decision===
> * During a period of 30 <small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the
> proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations.
> * Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of
> handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the
> mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed),
> without formal voting.
> * Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its
> recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.
>
> ===Proposal approved===
> * For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred
> to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but
> common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the
> content is often appropriate.
> * A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and
> deletion if applicable).
> * Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]],
> which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more
> strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now
> proposed for closure, were started)
>
> ===Proposal rejected===
> * The wiki remains open.
> * A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A
> proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to
> reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.
>
> ==Retroactivity==
> As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current
> proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under
> the new policy.
>
> ==References==
> <references />
>
> ==Links==
> * http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of
> currently closed wikis
> * [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking)
> * Previous proposals
> ** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal)
> ** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal)
> * Other
> ** [[Proposals for closing projects]]
> ** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small,
> inactive wikis]]
> ** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
> *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
> to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
> disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a
> one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
> a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
> or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?

The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to
normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of
the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting
in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the
regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)

The first issue is the product of compromise inside of the Language
committee. Gerard doesn't want to be involved in closing projects, so it
has to be the initiative of particular members. It would be anyway
triple checked: first during the community discussion, second time
during LangCom discussion and third time during the discussion inside of
the Board. Besides that, mentioning all relevant positions is the rule
of functioning inside of the Language committee, which means that nobody
would send to the Board suggestion without it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>

> On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> > could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
> > *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this
> advice
> > to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the
> committee
> > disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a
> > one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee
> has
> > a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about
> whether
> > or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
>
> The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to
> normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of
> the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting
> in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the
> regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)
>

As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded
through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The
fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.

I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right
one.

Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a
vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)

Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
>
> *Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
> discussion.
> *


If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*


2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>

> On 06/25/2011 12:38 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> > As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded
> > through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :)
> The
> > fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
>
> I think that the argument is valid as I didn't bother the list with not
> important issues from the meeting.
>
> > I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right
> > one.
> >
> > Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in
> a
> > vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)
>
> Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
> discussion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/25/2011 12:38 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded
> through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The
> fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.

I think that the argument is valid as I didn't bother the list with not
important issues from the meeting.

> I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right
> one.
>
> Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a
> vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)

Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
discussion.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.

PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision
about that requires a Resolution.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*


2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>

> On 06/25/2011 12:49 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> >> *Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
> >> discussion.
> >
> > If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to
> put
> > that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
>
> No, Ting has given today explicit approval. Six days before Sj gave
> explicit approval with the note that Ting should give the last comment.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/25/2011 12:49 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>> *Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
>> discussion.
>
> If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
> that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.

No, Ting has given today explicit approval. Six days before Sj gave
explicit approval with the note that Ting should give the last comment.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/25/2011 12:54 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
>
> PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision
> about that requires a Resolution.

I don't think that it is needed because Board has the final word anyway,
as well as Language proposal policy has never officially approved as-is,
but through the general recognition of Language committee.

At the other side, I agree that it would be useful that Ting or Sj
confirm what I said here.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
I also agree that a resolution is needed. Two individuals don't speak for
the whole board and I'm not willing to take your word on it. Up until now
the community has had the say over which projects were closed through the
proposals for closing projects and you throw out the statement that there's
a new "policy" that's "official" with nothing to back it up. Further it's
supposedly the language committee which should have the say when most of the
proposals for closure are due to inactivity and have nothing to do with the
language itself.

I never saw any requests for comment from the community either before you
decided to pull the rug out from under us. The situation is ridiculous.



> From: Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:04:50 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official
> On 06/25/2011 12:54 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> > So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
> >
> > PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision
> > about that requires a Resolution.
>
> I don't think that it is needed because Board has the final word anyway,
> as well as Language proposal policy has never officially approved as-is,
> but through the general recognition of Language committee.
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/25/2011 04:32 PM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> I also agree that a resolution is needed. Two individuals don't speak for
> the whole board and I'm not willing to take your word on it. Up until now
> the community has had the say over which projects were closed through the
> proposals for closing projects and you throw out the statement that there's
> a new "policy" that's "official" with nothing to back it up. Further it's
> supposedly the language committee which should have the say when most of the
> proposals for closure are due to inactivity and have nothing to do with the
> language itself.
>
> I never saw any requests for comment from the community either before you
> decided to pull the rug out from under us. The situation is ridiculous.

I am fine with it, including not getting that permission. I will move
the page to the previous state and ask Board to make resolution. If
Board doesn't want to do that, nothing will be changed.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
I had put a notice on [[meta:Wikimedia Forum]] and a notice on the
[[Proposals for closing projects]] page. Several users supported the policy
proposal, and some gave feedback so we could improve the text.
Apart from the meeting report, I think we didn't send a separate e-mail to
foundation-l about this, which we perhaps should have done.

My proposal included the language committee as decision body because I find
it logical that who is in charge of opening projects should be in charge of
closing them as well. When the community proposes a policy themselves, it
can replace this policy. The situation until now, without any policy, was
ridiculous.

(I'd like to make clear that no-one is really bothered with inactive
projects (it's just inactive, there's almost no spam or anything), except
those who volunteer to import the content of closed projects to the
Incubator, which I and several others do. It's easy to just close a project
and say that the content needs to be transferred.)

2011/6/25 Aaron Adrignola <aaron.adrignola@gmail.com>

> I also agree that a resolution is needed. Two individuals don't speak for
> the whole board and I'm not willing to take your word on it. Up until now
> the community has had the say over which projects were closed through the
> proposals for closing projects and you throw out the statement that there's
> a new "policy" that's "official" with nothing to back it up. Further it's
> supposedly the language committee which should have the say when most of
> the
> proposals for closure are due to inactivity and have nothing to do with the
> language itself.
>
> I never saw any requests for comment from the community either before you
> decided to pull the rug out from under us. The situation is ridiculous.
>
>
>
> > From: Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:04:50 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official
> > On 06/25/2011 12:54 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
> > > So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
> > >
> > > PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final
> decision
> > > about that requires a Resolution.
> >
> > I don't think that it is needed because Board has the final word anyway,
> > as well as Language proposal policy has never officially approved as-is,
> > but through the general recognition of Language committee.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
> Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
> a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
> or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?

Most close requests are for projects that would not have been created
under the current strictr langcom guidelines.

Sometimes I think Langcom might better be called a "New Project
Editions" committee, since they review not only whether a new project
would be lingiustically distinct or has its orthography sorted out,
but also whether there is a sufficient body of editors to make a new
language-edition successful. Both opening and closing arguments
about specific language-editions of a Project hinge at times on
language, and on the activity level of those advocating for
keeping/creating it.


On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
> *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
> to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
> disagrees

I don't understand this part myself. But every committee has a
certain leeway to decide how they will reach decisions.


>> *Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
>> discussion.
>> *
<
> If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
> that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.

The proposed LangCom policy update was shared within the past few weeks.

The Board didn't hold a vote or pass a resolution; as with other
langcom recommendations, we discussed the proposed changes and had the
option to veto them but did not.
I think this is a fine way for LangCom to present proposed closures of
language-editions to the Board, where there is no community consensus.
[.For comparison: any group is welcome to present recommendations, or
suggest resolution language, to the Board at any time; however this
goes smoother when there is a process laid out ahead of time.]

I don't think this new langcom policy should override the existing
option of using community consensus to close a project -- that simply
happens very rarely.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
Hello dear all,

on the August 2010 board meeting the board had talked about the
responsibilities of the board, the staff and the committees (minutes
here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/July_8,_2010 ). The
board had worked through this with the RASCI matrix
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix ). We had
decided that the creation and closing of projects are responsibilities
of the LangCom, the board should be informed about its decision. We
believe that the LangCom has the knowledge and the professionism in
issuing the correct policies, as it had showed in the past. When the
LangCom came up with its new closing project policy proposal the board
discussed it and thought that the policy is good. I therefore informed
the LangCom that the board has no objection on this policy. There is no
need for the board to issue a resolution on this.

Greetings
Ting

On 25.06.2011 11:20, wrote Milos Rancic:
> Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the
> policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
>
> Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be
> listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the
> next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at
> the LangCom list.
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members
>
> * * *
>
> This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some
> situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The
> proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to
> take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority
> over the member's decision.
>
> ==Problem situation and new authority==
> The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy.
> Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been
> adopted.
>
> Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be
> closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while
> others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and
> made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.
>
> This policy tries to address this problem by:
> * requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as
> either valid or invalid reasons
> * putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final
> Board decision
>
> The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an
> advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language
> proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and
> Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than
> opening one.
>
> Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and
> no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final
> authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve
> the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the
> appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.
>
> ==Policy proposal==
>
> ===Types of proposals===
> In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex
> or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified
> as one of two types:
> # Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally
> harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past).
> #: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks,
> ...''
> # Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial,
> questionable or in another way uncommon.
> #: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''
>
> ===Definition of actions===
> * Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but
> all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are
> removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated.
> * Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely
> unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still
> be available for external use.
> * Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages,
> along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]],
> [[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]]
> (or another site when explicitly mentioned).<small>See
> [[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small>
> ** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function.
> When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if
> needed.<small>When such a software feature becomes available, files
> should be exported.</small>
>
> ===Proposing===
> Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done:
> * The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see
> above).
> * If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly
> mentioned in the proposal.
> * When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as
> soon as possible.
> * A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted.
> ** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are.
> When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a
> certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia
> Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are
> not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of
> small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual
> wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason.
> ** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason
> (usually for type 1).
> ** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.
>
> ===Decision===
> * During a period of 30<small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the
> proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations.
> * Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of
> handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the
> mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed),
> without formal voting.
> * Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its
> recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.
>
> ===Proposal approved===
> * For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred
> to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but
> common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the
> content is often appropriate.
> * A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and
> deletion if applicable).
> * Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]],
> which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more
> strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now
> proposed for closure, were started)
>
> ===Proposal rejected===
> * The wiki remains open.
> * A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A
> proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to
> reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.
>
> ==Retroactivity==
> As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current
> proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under
> the new policy.
>
> ==References==
> <references />
>
> ==Links==
> * http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of
> currently closed wikis
> * [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking)
> * Previous proposals
> ** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal)
> ** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal)
> * Other
> ** [[Proposals for closing projects]]
> ** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small,
> inactive wikis]]
> ** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Closing projects policy now official [ In reply to ]
On 06/27/2011 11:39 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> on the August 2010 board meeting the board had talked about the
> responsibilities of the board, the staff and the committees (minutes
> here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/July_8,_2010 ). The
> board had worked through this with the RASCI matrix
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix ). We had
> decided that the creation and closing of projects are responsibilities
> of the LangCom, the board should be informed about its decision. We
> believe that the LangCom has the knowledge and the professionism in
> issuing the correct policies, as it had showed in the past. When the
> LangCom came up with its new closing project policy proposal the board
> discussed it and thought that the policy is good. I therefore informed
> the LangCom that the board has no objection on this policy. There is no
> need for the board to issue a resolution on this.

Thanks, Ting!

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l