Thank you for your report at
Could you please clarify if "In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation
will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have
article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or
managing the process" should be read by the FDC that Chapters and
Thorgs should not plan to use their funds for paid editing projects,
and that we will not support partnerships with other organizations
where this is an expected outcome?
As well as the list of people that you thanked, I would like to add my
thanks for Tomasz who took the time to research his original blog
post, and to Russavia for his analysis, both invested significant
unpaid volunteer time to do this research on behalf of the community.
Without their work I would not have thought to ask my basic questions
about the project on this list, nor would we have so much detailed
evidence to support your report.
I find it disappointing that when difficult governance questions like
this are raised in public, that some leading members of our community
default to treating the concerned whistle-blower as a troll, or press
for the question and discussion to stay secret from the main body of
our community by moving it to closed channels when there are no
privacy or personal issues to justify that secrecy or confidentiality.
This behaviour drives whistle-blowers underground or leaves them
tediously sniping on certain soap-box forums and wiki-discussion pages
using anonymous accounts.
I may help for us to consider how valuable good faith whistle-blowing
can be, and how we could avoid deriding or dismissing the questioner
as troll or a 'drama queen' and damaging their standing within our
community in the process.
Fae (troll, drama queen, speaking from the grave, etc.)