On 27/10/2007, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/10/2007, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this decision using previously established methods [...]
Who is "we"? The Gregory Maxwell committee? Obviously it wasn't a Board decision, if Florence knows nothing about it. And if it was an executive decision, why isn't it being announced by Sue, or one of the staff?
This "experiment" needed to be concluded by someone and it seems that the board haven't taken any steps in this direction. Two options when it comes to concluding this experiment are declaring it a success and making it permanent or declaring it failure and ending the ban. Since the motivation for the trial was PR and since the ban has probably done more net harm than good, I welcome Gregory Maxwell's initiative.
P.S. Just as a point of discussion: the Foundation was created to make certain processes easier and to centralise fundraising, &c. Why is a non-Foundation decision or initiative somehow less valid than one led by the Foundation?
Yes, the Foundation holds the purse strings (and does a very important job), but the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority on Wikimedia issues. The Foundation also has a tendency to consolidate power and remove community-based decision making processes (e.g. the lack of consultation in the latest fundraising drive).