First, thank you for your clear analyze and suggestions.
I won't respond extensively on list about this thread anymore for now.
So to your reply, I will just make a single point more clear, and take the rest in consideration off list.
Le 01/12/2017 à 22:49, Leila Zia a écrit :Once again, this is not about "I, me and my". Transparency is a core value of *our* Wikimedia movement. So the question is not to reach my satifaction, but the level of transparency which is expected in the Wikimedia movement.(ii) I demand transparency: You need to answer my questions since transparency is important for us and I have the right to ask about any topic and demand more explanation until my satisfaction.
As far as I'm aware, this level is nothing like "a right for any individual to ask full transparency on any topic at whichever level it wants". This is just broad unfair generalization of what I said. I never demanded such an extensive transparency level, and I actually would raise against such a demand more vigorously than what I'm doing here in favor of more transparency on a scoped issue.
My demand is on a scoped topic which, to my mind, is of deep importance for the general governance of the movement and its future as a whole. So if that is asking too much information, then yes it can be stated that I was wrong in my view regarding the expected level of transparency our community is demanding on its governance. Or maybe it's the importance of the topic and its impact that I'm miss-evaluating.
I recognize I'm all but perfect, I do mistakes, and the form of my message was a terrible one. Exaggeratedly generalized interpretation of a transparency demand is however not a proper way to discard the underlying issue.