On 27/10/2007, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/10/2007, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
After a one month period, on December 9th, we
will re-evaluate this
decision using previously established methods [...]
Who is "we"? The Gregory Maxwell committee? Obviously it wasn't a Board
decision, if Florence knows nothing about it. And if it was an executive
decision, why isn't it being announced by Sue, or one of the staff?
This "experiment" needed to be concluded by someone and it seems that
the board haven't taken any steps in this direction. Two options when
it comes to concluding this experiment are declaring it a success and
making it permanent or declaring it failure and ending the ban. Since
the motivation for the trial was PR and since the ban has probably
done more net harm than good, I welcome Gregory Maxwell's initiative.
P.S. Just as a point of discussion: the Foundation was created to make
certain processes easier and to centralise fundraising, &c. Why is a
non-Foundation decision or initiative somehow less valid than one led
by the Foundation?
Yes, the Foundation holds the purse strings (and does a very important
job), but the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority
on Wikimedia issues. The Foundation also has a tendency to consolidate
power and remove community-based decision making processes (e.g. the
lack of consultation in the latest fundraising drive).
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)