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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
James Rigg <jamesrigg1974(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l