On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic. And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for madness.
This "republic" vs "democracy" business is a fallacy I wish people would stop repeating as if it means something - it doesn't. No one anywhere on earth hears "democracy" and thinks "ancient Athenian direct democracy" is what is meant.
On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When
you
consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects
and
there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and
make a
high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
What people have demanded is transparency. Failing transparency they turn to democracy as the only way to rein in the non-transparent exercise of control and influence. The principle of affording the participants of a group or effort the power to select their leaders is one that transcends government and is meaningful in most contexts, including Wikimedia.
While I have said for years that Wikimedia is not a governance experiment, having an accountable leadership is not experimental. If you support transparency, and can see that folks asking for it have been given the silent treatment for months on end, then I fail to see why you argue against using the one lever of control that remains to demand that the desire for transparency be heard.