On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is not a criticism of WM-DE: We used that language last year, and I felt much of the criticism of it was unreasonable, especially yours. I find it interesting, though, in the context of the discussion that's happening on Meta right now regarding funds dissemination. It is also worth noting that we didn't use either choice of words this year in the WMF campaign in response to the concerns from last year.
From the standpoint of creating a balanced, community-friendly campaign that's respectful and responsive, decentralizing decision-making about the shape of the campaign to the geographic level is IMO likely to do the opposite: It will create more pressure (because it's a more competitive environment) between fundraising entities to maximize revenue and push the limits, while reducing visibility of (and associated accountability for) specific choices like the above among the wider Wikimedia community.
Yes, very symptomatic of the organiosational malaise. Folks up on high just not giving up on the idea that they know best, and trying to finagle a way to make their way against a very solid community view.
To be perfectly honest we need to set red lines for the foundation, beyond which the community will not follow,but will fork, with the full force of the intent. Learn to listen, foundation, don't try to sell things. You aren't put into your positions to sell things to the community. You are their servants. Get it?