I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation could or should be truly transparent, but I do think it is wrong for it to trade on the kudos of transparency when it is merely semi-transparent. And similarly for the claims I read of it being anti-hierarchical.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have been abandoned.
Hello James,
Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty good at transparency.
Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any other regardless of access flags.
I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule; people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep telling them they're all equal.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l