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 :
(ii) I demand transparency: You need to answer my
transparency is important for us and I have the right to ask about any
topic and demand more explanation until my satisfaction.
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
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
But once again, this is the single point I wanted to makes things more
clear, and the rest of Leila message seems full of good advises. So
while I'm not going to make extensive laudatory comments on the reply,
I'm not short of complimentary thoughts for the rest of it.