On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Greg Grossmeier <greg(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
<quote name="Alex Monk"
date="2016-01-28" time="19:07:09 +0000">
On 28 January 2016 at 18:53, Rob Lanphier
<robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> This is especially true given that ArchComm really has absolutely no
say
> > in resourcing and a given feature may
not have secured funding
(people,
> > hardware etc.)
> >
>
> Awww....you're mail was so great, and then you ended with this! Are
you
saying
that the only real power in this world belongs to people with
control of the money?
He wouldn't be the only one who thinks this. I've seen other people with
similar concerns about whether ArbComm is really in control or whether
WMF
management is, because it's WMF management
that actually gets to decide
what the paid Wikimedia developers (probably the majority of active
developers at this point) work on. I'm inclined to agree with them.
This is similar to the concern/line of reasoning that lead to all of the
questions about whether or not "WMF senior leadership" will be in active
attendance at the Dev Summit.
Also, Wes Moran gave the keynote, and didn't say anything to contradict
what I said in my email. Is there something I missed there?
Generally speaking, the position WMF executive management has taken in the
conversations that I've had is that WMF needs to do a better job listening
to the community. Saying that ArchCom has "no say" basically is taking a
needlessly fatalistic stance of a mindless wage slave. I know y'all well
enough to know that everyone on this thread is intensely mission-driven,
and "mindless" is about as far from a truthful description anyone could
give.
ArchCom strives to define what we should do, based on listening to the
community and using our collective expertise to craft a vision based on
what we learn. What "WMF senior leadership" (pls define) does with that
information is probably not in scope for this mailing list.
Rob