Birgitte SB wrote:
This all sounds nice, however you are truly judging
this as reciprocal we have already lost. While those
people representing WMF are inherently some of the
best people on this list, the "reciprocating" group is
open to anyone. There will always be bitter,
mean-spirited people around. If lack of transparency
is really due to these things, lets increase the
moderation to a level where there is enough kindness
to warrant transparency. Otherwise everyone will just
continue to be held hostage by lowest common
I have to say that I agree with Birgitte here. For me, Foundation-l has
becoming incresasingly useless as a mailing list because it is so
frequently dominated by people who seem to be very "bitter and
mean-spirited" to the point that they are on the attack no matter what
Open dialog and debate is fine. Criticism is fine. But a minority of
people endlessly beating others up without bothering to stop and "assume
good faith" just a little bit now and then just makes the list useless.
"The boy who cried wolf" is a classic tale which has some relevancy here.
The Foundation is the most transparent organization that I know of, to
the point of pathology sometimes. Ironically, that transparency breeds
in some an expectation so high, that it is assumed that everything has
to be discussed openly. Someone suggested to me the other day that
internal-l and all private mailing lists should be closed, and all
business conducted openly on the wiki. This is beyond nonsense, because
it would push the Foundation to *less* transparency, not *more*.
I am unsure what we should do about foundation-l. It has become a
sewer. It is difficult to balance our very strong desire for an
unmoderated forum where people can feel comfortable making strong
criticisms (nothing wrong with that!) with a forum where trolls are
exhausting a lot of good people and spreading misinformation due to the
inability of others to keep up with the sheer volume of malice.