First, thank you for your clear analyze and suggestions.
I won't respond extensively on list about this thread anymore for
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
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
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