[14:27:02] !hi bot [15:19:48] tos- Hey Soni, sorry I'm late! [15:19:56] Hey I_Jethrobot [15:20:46] How are you doing? [15:21:18] Just woke up, having dinner right now. So I guess I'm doing good [15:23:13] I also just woke up-- had a late night. : ) [15:23:24] What are you having for dinner? [15:24:04] Ah, okay. I'm having chapattis and curry. :) [15:24:38] Mm, sounds good. [15:25:00] So whats today's agenda [15:25:40] Right, so today I just wanted to focus on getting those new skills incorporated into our list and onto your graphic. [15:26:27] Right. Sounds good. [15:27:23] I also had a couple points in mind that the visualisation map had brought up [15:27:41] So wanted to discuss them with you [15:28:03] Sure thing. [15:28:16] Why don't we talk about that first, then? [15:28:42] I'll be done in about 5 minutes, so do you mind waiting for a while? [15:29:15] Maybe you could also look into the visualisation and we'd know if you had similar thoughts about the way our lessons are planned out [15:30:06] Yeah, that's fine by me. I'll check it out. [15:37:43] And back. [15:38:51] Should we delete the comment at top right, now that we've solved that issue, I_Jethrobot [15:39:19] top left I mean [15:40:07] Yeah, I agree. [15:40:37] Alright. I'm ready when you are. [15:41:38] Sure, I'm ready. [15:41:46] Okay. [15:42:09] So the first point that I noticed was what I told you about redundant conections and relations. [15:42:36] I had marked them all in colour in the sheet, so now will be a good time for us to decide what to do with them. [15:43:28] The orange ones (both "draws from" and "leads to") are probably needing only a "draws from" connection, as far as I can see. [15:44:29] But the 3 draws on 2 draws on 1 relation is something I want to ask you about. If this case happens, do you think 3 draws on 1 will be an removable redundancy? [15:45:15] (These are the ones marked in green) [15:45:31] Right, let me take a closer look. [15:45:36] Gotcha. [15:46:01] Check both of them and letme know when you're done. [15:47:30] So, the green ones under "leads to" are already covered by a "draws from" relationship? [15:47:43] Correct? [15:49:37] Ah, I mixed up the orange and the greens. [15:49:41] Yes that is correct [15:50:32] So then I think we can scrap those green ones then. [15:51:04] Yeah that's what I thought too. [15:51:16] I do think they are redundant and are covered, plus I think we can make suggestions based on the "leads to" pairs as well. [15:51:21] What about the ones on the "draws from" relationship? [15:51:29] Right [15:53:04] And I think we can get rid of those ones too. You had explained that these would be skills that would learned anyway by going through the lessons, right? [15:54:21] Uh, I dont follow. Can you repeat? [15:55:42] So, I'm looking at IAR. [15:56:12] IAR draws on 5P, but it woild've have been learned anyway by that time someone would get to that point. [15:56:41] Yes. More like IAR also draws on BRD+ which in turn draws on 5P [15:56:55] So covering BRD+ = Covering 5P [15:57:16] Unless we want to emphasize the fact that IAR draws on 5P, which I dont know if we want to [15:58:16] Yeah, I don't think we need to. [15:59:02] Gotcha. Would you consider the same to apply for all the orange cases or would you want to check them out? [15:59:26] Yeah, let me check those other sout. What did you mean by the "3 draws on 2"comments above? [15:59:31] others out* [16:00:05] "3 draws on 2" was just another way of explaining the relationship between IAR, BRD+ and 5P [16:03:22] OK. [16:03:51] Let me know when you've checked the cases, I_Jethrobot [16:06:15] tos - OK, all done. [16:06:44] I agree that these are also redundant. I mean, I think they are necessary skills, but they would necessarily need to be understood along the way. [16:06:55] Gotcha. [16:07:01] So you think we should remove them all? [16:07:03] So, I'll remove them in addition to the green highlight fields on the sheet. [16:07:05] Yes. [16:07:52] Gotcha. [16:09:31] Alright, all done with that one. [16:10:00] Great. [16:10:56] The next thing was a rather minor suggestion to simply rephrase "leads to" as "connects to" and to remove the redundancies there [16:11:12] (Redundancies = When two skills both lead to each other) [16:11:16] Sure, that's fine. I'll retitle it. [16:13:30] Anything else? [16:13:36] The redundancies? [16:15:41] Redundancies or just other things about the visualization / skill list you wanted to talk about. [16:17:46] Well there were some other skills which were unconnected. [16:18:56] Let's go over those, then. Which ones still have yet to be addressed [16:18:57] ? [16:19:12] RIGHTS-I, IAR, MOVE, OR, BARNSTAR, DR [16:19:20] Those are the ones I saw right now [16:22:37] OK, let look at RIGHTS-I then. [16:23:36] Hm. [16:23:57] What are relevant connections, according to you? [16:24:27] Well, I think either need to get rid of it entirely or substitute it for both Rollback and Reviewer lessons. [16:24:36] I think the idea was that both of these could be covered in one topic. [16:25:23] (Just looking at the description, that is.) [16:25:29] Well in my opinion, Rollback and Reviewer are pretty separate lessons. [16:25:53] I intended to let you know about that during the discussion on GoP's email [16:27:51] Mostly because Rollbacker is much more aligned with vandal fighting, which one associates with quicker decision making and more focus on checking of intentions of the editor. [16:29:18] While on the other hand, Reviewer is much more connected to article development and the primary focus is fact-checking and NPOV concerns. [16:29:55] ...Speed matters lesser than tone, neutrality and WP:UNDUE for overall article [16:30:26] By my opinion, those are some pretty good demarcations to cause them to be separate lessons, I think. [16:31:35] Yeah, OK. I think understanding vandalism is an important concept for both, but NPOV and BLP concerns are probably less relevant for using rollback. [16:31:54] So, we'll keep them separate, but I think we should scrap RIGHTS-I [16:33:36] Hmmm... Now that I think of it, RIGHTS-B could easily cover most of the things I thought appropriate of RIGHTS-I, like explanation of adminship and RFA etc [16:34:25] Yeah, I definitely think so. [16:34:38] Hmm, so thats one down. [16:34:58] I'll remove it from the skill list... [16:35:17] Removed from the map [16:35:42] OK, so IAR. [16:35:49] I_Jethrobot, If there are any parts of the description/I want to that can be merged with other sections, please check into that [16:37:39] I'll be back in two mins I_Jethrobot. [16:37:51] sure thing. [16:41:25] And back [16:41:38] So IAR... Which skills do you think are most connected? [16:42:02] I_Jethrobot, ^ [16:42:19] Yeah, IAR is not as easy to nail down. [16:42:41] I mean, it can apply to all sorts of things and situations in my mind. [16:42:58] So, we can name any of number of things for connections. [16:43:01] My thought process says that IAR is a basic skill but one that's much more social than policy. [16:43:43] I'll say CONS-B makes for a good connection [16:43:57] Because both require understanding, to an extent [16:44:22] Sure, I think that's fair. [16:45:13] A similar argument could apply for AGF+ I think [16:45:17] POL-I seems like a decent connection as well. [16:45:29] (i.e., how IAR gets applied) [16:46:15] Agreed. [16:47:37] OK, so for connections, we can add in AGF+, CONS-B, and POL-I. [16:48:06] Sounds good [16:48:11] I'll make those in the map [16:48:49] OK. [16:49:03] Can I ask why BRD+ is a prerequisite for IAR? [16:49:05] I_Jethrobot, I just realised CONS-B is already connected to IAR [16:49:48] Ah, right. I did see it on the sheet while adding the others. [16:53:25] Made the connects on the map [16:54:29] And the reason I kept BRD+ as a pre-requisite for IAR was because my opinion for IAR was that it required an understanding of the fifth pillar before being understood and applied. [16:55:14] I personally considered merging BRD+ and IAR, but given how many editors get confused about IAR and where it does not apply, I decided to let it be as a separate intermediate lesson for now [16:55:25] ^ I_Jethrobot What do you think about my reasoning [16:56:41] I think it's sound, I just wanted to see your perspective on it. [16:57:49] Right, gotcha. [16:58:30] So going onto MOVE, I think that'll be relevant to some of the new skills we're adding. [16:58:54] Right. Do you think any of the currently existing ones are relevant? [16:59:12] Yeah...I'm thinking about it. [17:00:48] It does occur to me that moving articles ought to draw on BRD+, because it can be controversial. [17:01:02] And does necessitate discussion sometimes. [17:01:43] Right. Sounds good. [17:03:31] But I can't think of connections with the current skills. [17:03:55] I dont think I can see any other direct connnections to current skills, but there are some others which are relevant because they are along the same general lines [17:05:23] IMAGE is another technical skill, and so is ECHO. Not sure if that should make for a connection, but we might want to consider if we are thinking along the general lines [17:05:34] (For intermediate and advanced connections) [17:06:41] Sure, I think that's fine. [17:06:53] I'll add 'em on the list. [17:08:23] Added onto the map. [17:10:25] I_Jethrobot, I believe OR is next, right? [17:10:30] Right. [17:10:52] So, OR seems pretty well-connected to me. Did you some other ideas? [17:11:54] Did you have* [17:12:49] Hm, interesting. I might have been confused between OR and DR :| [17:14:05] OK. [17:14:21] Now onto BARNSTAR [17:14:39] Right. [17:15:32] We can probably make a connection to USER: for this one. [17:16:03] Right. [17:16:43] I that's about it. [17:16:48] I think that's* [17:17:05] Yeah. I didnt see any well connected lessons either [17:17:10] Right. It's a very specific social matter. [17:17:39] The only lessons which were close were already pre-requisites so thats about it. [17:17:45] The next skill was DR, right? [17:18:10] Yup. [17:19:08] POL- I seems very relevant to me [17:20:40] Yeah, certainly. [17:21:26] As a prerequisite? [17:22:23] Yes, actually a prequisite makes more sense than a connection [17:24:10] Okay, let's do that, then. [17:24:16] Other than that, again I dont see many connections. Perhaps some skills are likely to remain relatively unconnected [17:25:19] Yeah. [17:25:51] So, I have a little bit of time left, but I've added in diambiguation, article clean-up, and article expansion skills below. [17:26:02] Along with "I want to" statements. [17:26:18] Right. Let me check them out. [17:26:32] And some connections I thought might be reasonable,. [17:27:50] The connections and "I want to" statements seem completely reasonable [17:28:47] Good! [17:29:00] Though I'll say Disambiguation falls under either Writing or Technical [17:29:39] OK, I've made it writing with a subtopic policies. [17:29:52] Although it occurs to me we're not really using the subtopics... [17:30:06] But whatever, it's not a big deal. [17:30:22] I think the main topic distinction is good enough for our purposes. [17:31:07] Right. [17:31:26] I'm trying to write a description for DAB and CLEAN [17:32:32] OK, I'll take care of expand. [17:34:28] Btw I also connected RATING and CLEAN [17:35:20] Excellent idea. [17:36:19] OK, I think that's good for today. [17:37:02] Right. I'll just add these three new skills to the map and figure out how to simplify the super-complicated map we're getting right now [17:37:41] Yeah, the map is definitely getting that way! But I still really like it. [17:38:05] Yeah, me too. Especially if I can get to simplify it. :) [17:38:23] I_Jethrobot, When do you think we can meet next, if there are any more things to discuss? [17:38:57] So, I think the next thing we'll start on next week is thinking about how learners will get started in the space, and what that process looks like. [17:39:27] We'll need to be able to provide that information to our designer and programmer to communicate our needs to them. [17:39:37] Uh, as for when... [17:39:39] Right. [17:39:57] Also, I just need to remind you that we're still yet to check mockups that were made [17:40:05] Right, and the mock-ups. [17:40:07] For those three sample learners [17:40:48] Let me talk to Gabe about those today to make sure we're delivering what he needs. [17:41:00] (My mockup is still in a separate GDoc, I'll import to the current one once I figure out some questions I had in mind for you. So the next meeting i suppose. [17:41:02] I'm meeting with him in about half-an-hour. [17:41:17] Right. [17:41:39] That makes more sense, especially if Gabe can check out the skills map and see if that helps him more. [17:42:08] Yeah. [17:42:19] So, Monday is a little busy for me. [17:42:33] We have our All-Star meeting on Monday. [17:42:41] I also interview a designer on Monday. [17:43:02] Oh, and I interviewed a programmer who is also living in India, Soni. I think he recognized your name. [17:43:05] By the way, I will be unavailable from Friday onwards. I'll be travelling to college so am expecting a pretty hectic next weekend. [17:43:30] Uh huh? Do you know his name, by any chance? [17:44:18] His name is Jeph Paul. [17:44:23] He's done some WMF work. [17:44:45] He asked where you lived in India, but I actually don't remember if I asked you! [17:44:58] Hmm... Interesting. I dont remember if I have come across him. [17:45:42] Heh, I dont think you have. I live in Kolkata but my college is in Hyderabad so I only visit home during holidays. [17:46:34] Yes, that's quite a long ways. [17:46:51] Two hours by plane! [17:47:06] Sheesh. (Just checking it out on Google Maps) [17:47:27] Yeah. I will have luggage so its a 24 hour train journey for me :P [17:47:36] Ugh, yeah. [17:47:49] I've taken a similar train trip from Chicago to Philadelphia. [17:47:54] It's also an overnight haul. [17:48:34] So, Monday's not great for me... [17:48:48] How about Tues., 7/22? [17:49:06] Hmm... Is it possible to complete the meeting by Sunday, if you can? [17:49:29] I'm kindof hoping to finish all IEG work as soon as I can, so I can get to packing. [17:49:36] Yeah sure, I can do Sunday. [17:49:59] Great, thanks. What time will be best? [17:50:56] Well, it'll have be somewhat earlier, I'll be busy between 16:00 - 18:00 UTC [17:51:04] Does 14:00 UTC work for you? [17:51:08] or 14:30 maybe? [17:52:03] It's an inconvenient timing, but if you cant make it later in the night (After 1800 UTC), I will have to adjust [17:53:55] I can make it later, I think... [17:54:11] How about 18:30 UTC? [17:54:35] (Also, I can do tomorrow if that's a possibility for you) [17:55:06] Lets do it Sunday 18:30 then [17:55:56] Sounds great. [17:56:12] OK, I have to go, Soni. I'll talk to you on Sunday. [17:56:27] Sure. See you later I_Jethrobot