Birgitte SB wrote:
Without knowing the full history, or many details at
all, I can understand both sides of this.
Well, please know that at least some people may have a different
understanding than others what the direction of the foundation is. If
there is an idea that the foundation is pushing to become less community
oriented, while the volunteers are resisting this, then I totally and
completely reject this in every possible way.
The Foundation is committed, and I speak here confidently based on the
statements of ALL board members and virtually everyone who is seriously
involved in "organizational" work, including committees and chapters...
there is overwhelming support from all these quarters for Wikimedia
remaining community based and extending our community model in
Recently I heard about a big argument in the German Wikipedia about the
Verein... and honestly it sounded to me like the same story all over
again. People who are very good volunteers but who prefer, for good
reasons, to spend their time editing, may not always properly appreciate
the work of other volunteers who become more involved in organizational
That said it is much easier to get things done when
they are kept closed.
Usually not, actually. There are a very few cases where this is true,
and of course there are cases where some information has to be handled
discreetly as a matter of professionalism.
But for the most part, we have found that amazing things happen when
there is openness, transparency, accountability, and a love and passion
for our mission.
If anyone is afraid that the Foundation is going to become a
bureaucratic and inefficient organization which is unresponsive to
volunteers, let me say: over my dead body. (And remember: the areas in
which the foundation has been inefficient and unresponsive it has been
precisely because we have not had enough people involved, which is
precisely why we have decided as a board to follow a strategy of
delegation into the community, rather than closing up.)