Hi All,
I was not present at this meeting, but gather that it was a weekend that was valued by all
that attended. As Chris has already indicated, he does not agree with the remark and I
think that all of us disagree with the remar (and that is discounting the fact that the
whole statement is taken out of context which makes a big difference)
But in the middle of a heated discussion, things get said. Chris has indicated that one of
the ground rules for the workshop was that individual contributions were made on a
confidential and non-attributable basis. And I agree that I would be terrible to break
this confidentiality as this would severely limit the effectiveness of future sessions
within the movement because feel people that they cannot be frank. As a movement we have a
tremendous challenge ahead of us in the coming years, and we need open interaction amongst
the different entities in order to make progress on these goals. Are we really interested
in a movement where all volunteer board members are constantly being politically correct
and cannot misspeak (whereas other community members can?). I for one would enjoy an open
environment rather than a punishing one which closely resembles some of the political
environments we read so much about.
Can we assume that the feedback has already reached the person in question (and the person
probably got more than enough feedback during and after the session). Does it really
benefit us as a movement to force this person to resign or be publicly shamed?
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees
PS: whenever Christophe speaks I would be likely to cheer, only to realise minutes later…
“What the #(*$& did I just agree with?” ;)
On 07 Apr 2014, at 13:54, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ok so the quote taken out of context is actually
saying the opposite
of the original meaning.
The discussion was about "what are the goals of the Wikimedia
Organizations?". Why do they exist?
If we look at what Wikimedia Organizations do, mostly, is investing in
free knowledge. If that's their main goal, well then we don't have to
care about the communities. That was said as a way to shock people and
make them think about why Wikimedia Organizations exist and perhaps
that they should rethink their goal and their focus. Make
organizations think a little more about the communities instead of
sheer free knowledge production.
In that same session I did say some pretty radical things, if you take
some sentences out of my 10 minutes monologue (yeah I kinda tend to
speak a lot :() you could say that I said "let's disband all Wikimedia
Organizations".
Taking a single sentence totally out of context can lead, as it is the
case here, to change it's true meaning.
No need for any witch hunt here, I can't think of anyone in our
community that doesn't value a lot volunteer and community work as we
are all part of that community.
Best,
--
Christophe
On 7 April 2014 13:37, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz(a)twkozlowski.net> wrote:
Chris Keating wrote:
This was exactly because we wanted people to
speak freely and not worry
about a witch-hunt on an email list if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.
I wish you answered the question instead of smearing me on a public mailing
list, Chris. I have no idea who you are, but I would expect you to adhere to
elementary rules of debating, which suggest not to resort to personal
attacks.
If you are a Wikipedian, I should not have to explain this to you.
What a shameful comment, Chris.
Tomasz
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>