Jimmy Wales a écrit :
In particular, the "increasingly" perception
is the one I want to
combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how
things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more
people involved.
(...)
The Foundation has more and more work, so question is not if more people is to be
involved. That's obvious. Question is if *the community* is to be more and more
involved.
I think we try really hard to do this, whenever
possible. I am unaware
of any major changes of direction which were not openly discussed until
something approaching consensus is reached. Of course, this list does
have some trolls, but almost everyone contributing here has a strong
voice in the future course of the foundation in every way.
(...)
Yeah ? Then just say where this important decisions are discussed, because I don't
know, and I think i'm not the only one. Obviously not on this mailing-list...
Surely you can see that this is exhausting for us. It
is not the
working with community which is exhausting... that part is the most
rewarding. It is the unfair criticism when people who have not bothered
to take part, not bothered to learn what is going on, suddenly pop up
and scream bloody murder because they were not consulted.
(...)
I think that's really unfair, because most of the people contributing on this thread
*bother* to take part, and never had a chance to do so. And that's *exactly* what they
are complaining about !
Why would anyone assume that the board would be headed
towards slendid
isolation? You have a strong commitment from all existing board members
to preserve the essential community spirit of Wikipedia while at the
same time recognizing that service on the board requires input and
expertise from a variety of different kinds of people. What seems
obvious to me is that we need a variety of different routes to board
membership, including election in some cases, but also including
recruitment based on expertise that we need.
To the thema isolation of the board : hiring paid board members could be technically a
good solution, but for sure, the guys who hired them can fire them, so they are not
independant decision-makers, but only obedient people. Consequently, instead of
decision-makers refleceting the will of the community, we get decision-makers reflecting
the will of those who have hired them.
Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for
this?
(...)
How could we suppose it's not the case ?
I think you have completely failed to comprehend the
seriousness of the
issues facing the business side of the foundation. It is *not* just
about paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions. We are
growing inevitably into a major enterprise with a multi-million dollar
annual budget. There is no way around that, other than simply refusing
to grow and letting the site run slow because we don't have the servers.
(...)
Yeah, but that's some years ahead. For the moment, it's not the case, so each
thing in its time. Lucky enough you don't let build some skyscraper, because some day,
it could be necessary as a headquarter.
But this feeling is coming from where? That is what I
am finding
puzzling. We are here, the board, before you, among you, as always...
and to be accused of paternalism is... well, it is sad, given all that
we have done and all that we value.
The board is *not* representative of the community, and is taking the most important
decisions, and, despiste what you say, without real consultation, or even without clear
annoucement, so my feeling is that the motto of the Board is something like : just let the
board care.
You may want to consider that you have jumped to some
conclusions
incorrectly...
It seems to me it hits the nail on the head.
Traroth