WeRelate talk:Overview committee

Overall strategy [1 January 2013]

There's reference in the committee's mandate of defining the overall strategy for the site. Has the committee been able to make any progress with this? AndrewRT 18:03, 1 January 2013 (EST)

Cleanup guide [15 March 2014]

Beth suggested I move this discussion here. We've been talking about putting together a cleanup guide because several users requested one. It wouldn't be a bad idea. We were hammering this out on my talk page, but it would be best if it were here so more people could see it.--Daniel Maxwell 01:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Status of the Overview Committee [26 May 2016]

Returning after a long absence. Curious to know the status of this committee. Don't see anything posted for over a year... Thanks. Jillaine 22:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The overview committee hasn't met for about a year. It's my fault. I haven't spent a lot of time working on WeRelate lately, and things seem to be going well without an overview committee. If someone were interested in starting it up again, I'll do what I can to help get it re-started...--Dallan 04:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the recent discussions at WeRelate talk:Watercooler and WeRelate talk:Support, I think it's time. I would like WeRelate to stay relevant, exceptional, and even exclusive, so please let me know if I can be of assistance. --BobC 17:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

An update.

After discussions with Dallan the overview committee is being restarted, I am leading the restart unless someone else wants to do the job. As committee members are sorted out the page will be updated and I expect the first discussions will be in early June.--Rhian 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to be involved. Thank you. --Cos1776 16:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I second your nomination to lead the effort. I too would like to be involved. Not sure yet in what specific capacity or role, but I feel I cannot legitimately point out the challenges and shortcomings here if I can't be prepared to invest the time in contributing to the effort to make it better. Thanks. --BobC 21:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Status? [27 October 2016]

There are some things that I would like to do, help with, etc., that just can't happen without leadership from this group.

For example, I would like to participate in creating code to standardize dates. That's even though my preferred format (leading zero on years before 1000) seems not to have gained any traction! Standard appearances - with tools in place to actively manage things - are more important than "winning" the outcome for any particular subjective appearance item. When tools are in place to maintain a community standard - the community has the opportunity to revise that standard without contemplating thousands of boring and error prone hand edits.

Thanks!

--jrm03063 17:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow up [30 October 2016]

re: leading zeros for years (only). Jun 2016, Rmg added this phrase to the Help:Style guide, "... years should have four digits so a year before 1000 should have leading zero's [sic] ..." --cos1776 15:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

re: Oct 2016 status of the OC. Following some setbacks over the summer, we are re-grouping. Members, please check your email for instructions that went out last week on accessing the new meeting site. Some, but not all of you have logged in. Thank you. --cos1776 15:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to see some conventions adopted - so that we can begin to create code that will standardize date formats. --jrm03063 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What the previous response indicates, perhaps, is that what is needed is unambiguous answers with clearly established authority. I say this since the date format seems to be far better defined that some of the other aspects of the system, and yet we are still talking about it. This, I believe, means that certain parts of the system, like Help pages, and maybe other namespaces, need to be protected from editing by just any user. This, so that it is understood that Help pages represent the policy of WeRelate, and not just the thoughts of the last editor. Further, it would be great to develop software that enforced the agreed upon convention any time a page was saved. --Jrich 02:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think restricting editing of Help: pages to only, say, Admins would be a significant mistake, at least without further provisions. The help pages are not the best location for documenting Admin-approved policy, as help page should focus on being helpful to users and so should include suggestions, hints, typical solutions, and such, none of which are typically policy. The Help: pages are currently rather poor, and excluding most of the community from editing them would much reduce the potential for improving them. --robert.shaw 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Help pages should be where people go to find out how to do things, so what better place to put policy about what goes in each field, how to format it, what's required and/or expected during the data entry process? They're currently poor because there has been no central guidance or design, and even when there, they're not trusted. Further, restricting their installation does not restrict people from being commissioned, or volunteering, to write help pages. But hopefully it might be done with some direction at the beginning, some review before installation, and some hint of authority due to having a formal update process. Not to mention integrating various "?" links or other help popups with the appropriate Help page. --Jrich 22:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake in responding to a Jun 2016 OC agenda item on this page instead of steering the discussion to WeRelate talk:Overview committee/June 2016. Your comments are appreciated. I want to be sure that they will not be overlooked and are easy to follow and reference in the future, so I will repost and respond on that page in a few minutes. Thank you. --cos1776 16:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)