Talk:IRC office hours/Office hours 2020-10-15

Question 17

@Mdennis (WMF) and BChoo (WMF): Thank you for both, doing the office hours as well as the documentation. It always helps me to recatch what was said because I am better at reading than listening. I could understand most what was written here but I stumbled over “Follow-up: An example I'm thinking of is English Wikinews's specific rejection of "Assume Good Faith" (which is included in the draft) in favor of its own "Never Assume" In order for the UCoC to work it can't be codified and never touched. We should--we have committed to reviewing this to ensure it is functional. Can we get at what is meant by both policies? It's about the ongoing viability of the UCoC.”. I cannot make any sense of it. If possible, could you please clarify this answer a bit? Thanks in advance. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@DerHexer: I am glad you are finding the documentation of use, and thank you for pointing out this problem. For the office hours, we had someone take live notes, which I then edited after the office hours by watching it again. I think I could have done a better job with the notes on this question. Here's a transcription of the question and Maggie's answer. Hopefully this helps a bit! BChoo (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Question (at 39:10 in the YouTube video): The example that [the person asking the question] is pointing to is English Wikinews's specific rejection of "Assume Good Faith," which is included in the draft [of the UCoC], in favor of its own "Never Assume" [guideline].

Answer: OK, so, alright, let's pretend that I'm in charge of UCoC Phase 2 for a minute, and that in fact Phase 2 looks exactly like I want it to. I think that, first of all, I've said before, I'll say it again, in order for the Universal Code of Conduct to work, it can't be codified and never touched. We have to look at it and make sure that it's effective, because policies reflect the best intention of people to change thought to language on page, and things go wrong between what I'm thinking and what I wrote and what you're reading. So to me, we should be, and we've committed to, reviewing this thing later, if it's ratified by the Board, to make sure that it's functional. So I think that would be a case where, again, if I were in charge of Phase 2 all by myself, I'd say, "Why do they have a 'Never Assume'? And how is it contradictory to the UCoC? And is there a way that we can get at what is meant by both of them that actually is in benefit to the movement at large?" So, I think that, for me, that would be a question of the ongoing value of the document and the ongoing value of local policies. I imagine this is the kind of thing where we may get to do that a lot, although perhaps not. Again, I haven't read the draft, so I'm not sure what specifically it says about "Assume Good Faith", but if it's similar to English Wikipedia, I have a guess.

Thank you, DerHexer and User:BChoo (WMF)! I'm sure I'm not always easy to follow, especially when I get excited. I've had a lot of training in composition on paper, but not much on composing speech. Add stage fright into that, and I'm not surprised if I'm confusing, although I'm sorry about that. I'll try to go slower and organize my thoughts better before I open my mouth rather than as I go. :) As you know, DerHexer, I'm trying to learn Spanish (slowly), and I know that while I'm now capable of reading fairly well (sort of), I am utterly incapable of following fluent Spanish speaking. :/ I don't want to create that disconnect for anybody else! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)