I apologize for the condescending edit summary.
A retrospective reflects the impressions of the people who participated in a project. If you have comments, it would be better to put them on the talk page, or create another page and link it prominently from the retrospective page. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tgr (WMF), no problem. That's a reasonable definition for the page. Alsee (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree external perspective would be useful; would you be willing to write one somewhere? (FWIW the retrospective reflects the things team members agreed on; individual team members sometimes had starker views on some points. It's hard to state candid opinions publicly when anything you say is liable to be taken and used against coworkers - that's a problem our movement hasn't figured out yet, IMO, and it results in slightly watered-up documents like this one.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tgr (WMF), wow. I didn't think you guys would be interest in this. You didn't say anything specific about what happened, but nonetheless your comments were impressively candid. I imagine some of the staff were in a painfully impossible situation. I may need some time to get to it, but yeah, I can make one. Are you just looking for my individual comments? Or is this significant enough to get some other editors to collaborate on it more thoroughly?
- I am really happy with the WMF's positive approach to the community recently. During the Media Viewer events I was one of the very critical voices. To be honest I'm feeling little guilty at the prospect of unloading a pile of old criticisms when things are going so well now. Alsee (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Well I am interested (and appreciate that you are willing to spend your free time on this), don't want to talk in anyone else's name. The Multimedia team doesn't exist any more (somewhat confusingly, there is a Multimedia team, but it's a different one), but people in Reading (which is the current group responsible for reader-facing features) are very interested these days in figuring out how to have a constructive relationship with the community, so I might not be your only reader, but no guarantees :) I'm the only person in Reading who also worked on Media Viewer but others might be interested in learning from history. I don't think you should put too much effort into it though, there will probably be more important discussions soon (e.g. about the Gather RfC). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the Gather RFC, to put it in a nutshell, at the moment many in the community are inclined to interpret any remotely ambiguous statement in the the most cynical manner possible. I'm hopeful that community members will start criticizing "unreasonable cynicism" when more people see what I'm seeing. Some of the liaison comments before the RFC were interpreted as trying to avoid/reject an RFC from happening (i.e. driving forwards an unstoppable project). During the RFC the community seriously shouldn't shouldn't have been blaming the WMF for opposing the outcome - there is no outcome until it closes. And to be fair, delivery of the outcome to the WMF should be treated as "first communication of an actual community request", and from that point the WMF is entitled to reasonable time to sort out a reaction. When the WMF did decide how to handle it, the WMF did so very reasonably and constructively. However the statements were not blindingly-explicit. Several community members read into those statements any remotely plausible interpretation of evasion, conflict, or rejection. Alsee (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Adding ping: Tgr (WMF). Alsee (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully ask that you not edit pages related to the Technical Collaboration Guidelines. They are work-related and are the result of a lot of time and negotiation for wording. I appreciate your attempt to clarify something that you felt was a detrimental inference, but it's not the case. Use the talk page if you think something is in error rather than making assumptions. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion continued at Talk:Technical_Collaboration_Guideline/Milestone_communication, topic Clarification on intent. Alsee (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Doing the Flow RfC at en.wp before more Flow-promotional antics might be more practical. If a consensus against is as sure as you think, then a strong showing of rejection might be enough to see the project abandoned sooner rather than later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish ☺, it is tempting. However Flow has been a non-topic for a long time. The RFC would drop out of the sky for zero apparent reason. People who dislike the RFC would get riled up, viewing the RFC as a pointless and provocative move. When the survey is announced, or there is some other significant movement on Flow, then there will be a natural discussion on the topic. There will be a clear flurry of people interested in running it, and a clear reason for having an RFC to officially sort out consensus on the subject.
- That said, I certainly have no opposition to anyone who wants to step up and post it now :) If you'd like to do so, or you'd like to help improve it, the current draft can be found at EN:User:BethNaught/Draft Flow RfC Alsee (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, We received reports about your behaviour in several phabricator tickets related to flow. Even though we understand the importance of criticism of technical products and that being vital to improving the work, the committee finds your behaviour in violation of the Code of Conduct (specifically the ninth point in "Unacceptable behavior" part). Given that you have been warned before, the committee decides to ban you from acting on any flow-related task in phabricator for two months. Technically this ban can't be enforced but if you violate it, you immediately get a one-month complete ban from phabricator. We hope in future, you engage in discussions in a more civil and constructive manner and avoid making strong assumptions about other people's intentions. Best TechConductCommittee (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)