On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)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
This "republic" vs "democracy" business is a fallacy I wish people
stop repeating as if it means something - it doesn't. No one anywhere on
earth hears "democracy" and thinks "ancient Athenian direct democracy"
what is meant.
On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
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
consider where people are and where we have our
audience, I find that our
results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects
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
high impact without getting sidetracked by
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.