<quote name="Rob Lanphier" date="2016-01-28" time="11:52:11
-0800">
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.
I think the charitable interpretation is that it was/is unclear to some
(I'm mostly going off of my interpretation of some of the questions
asked during the planning phase of the DevSummit here (aka: hearsay)) if
the DevSummit was going to be a "place of decisions" or something else
(education, etc), and if it was to be a place of decisions then without
explicit buy-in from WMF management those decisions could be
less-than-timely implemented (if those who could do the implementation
were a contested "resource" with some other high priority request that
wasn't at the DevSummit).
Apologies for my long sentence with too many parentheticals.
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.
Except for when what I outlined above happens, aka something that has
general consensus within the "community" and even ArchCom doesn't get
any legs because those who could/should do it are tasked with other
things. In other words: it's not unreasonable to assume those people
won't spend their personal time doing that work.
However, this might be rat-holing on this one aspect around
"resourcing", so I'm willing to both be told I'm wrong and drop it.
Greg
--
| Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |