Of note though, she did freely invite comments on the proposal. Of course
its still her decision, but now we at least have the community view on it,
whether positive or negative. I also would like to thank Sue for making
this as open as it is.
DeltaQuad - Mobile Tablet
English Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser
On Oct 27, 2012 2:11 PM, "Jan-Bart de Vreede" <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org>
So just as a note from me personally (as a individual WMF Trustee member).
What I think is the general idea is that
1) Sue formulates her thoughts on meta rather than privately
2) This is influenced by the public discussion on meta
3) She wraps up at a certain point
4) and sends her final proposition to the board
5) And the board takes her proposition, and the feedback on meta (which
she will have included in her proposition) and makes a decision
And in this case I think that all of that was done. Its not a
"community-consensus" thing as far as I see. As your Board of Trustees
(which also includes your representation) its our task to make that final
decision. Having Sue prepare this decision in a public way is a great way
of preparing for that decision.
On 27 Oct 2012, at 10:32, ENWP Pine <deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Denny’s point about COIs in this discussion, and I believe
same issue has been raised regarding the FDC.
I find it helpful when people who have financial interests or other
disclose that information in their statements on that Meta
page and/or in Wikimedia-l depending on where they make their comments, and
I would be in favor of a policy requiring that potential conflicts of
interest be disclosed in a situation like this. These potential COIs
include being a staff member of WMF whose budget or employment would be
affected positively or negatively by these proposed changes.
In my own case, I'm not a fellow or aspiring fellow, chapter executive,
researcher, or WMF staff person whose department would be affected by
these proposed changes, so I believe that as far as my own comments are
concerned, I can speak without a financial interest in the outcome of the
If we operate by consensus instead of by mere vote-counting, and if
WMF staff participate in good faith, then hopefully there will
be enough balancing and give-and-take negotiation among those with COIs for
a supermajority consensus to solidify. The other option is to ask for
people who don’t have potential COIs to make a decision based on the
opinions and information provided by others. However, this may all be a
moot issue since it appears to me that Sue, a few of her chosen associates,
and the Board apparently intend to make decisions themselves, so the
community discussion on that Meta talk page will be used for discussion but
not for finalizing a decision. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken.
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list