You paint it as a question of one or the other. Either you listen to the concerns of people, OR you "do what you aim to do", as if it is impossible to do both.
This is a bad premise. I would hope that within the organizational structure of Wikimedia, there would be room for sharing ideas, and for some degree of controlled democracy. In many ways, the LC is doing a great job.
That does not mean that the LC should be completely closed to outside input. There should always be room for discussion and serious reconsideration of policies, and as of yet I think most people on this list would agree with the assessment that you do not appear to have listened to a thing anybody had to say about the policy, instead defending it without stopping to consider it on its merits. Of course, it is fine if you support the existing policy, but such a position of supporting the status quo should be reasoned and well thought-out, something that a couple of people have provided already with their positions here in support of the status quo, but that you have not with your circular reasoning and continued unwillingness to lend your ear to the concerns of mere non-LC civilians.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l