Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post]
"Moving forward, we will
articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and
our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices."
That would be a reasonable statement if this were a more marginally concerning action -
something that promoted some concerns, and pointed to potential greater future issues if
However this indicates the WMF is willing to accept that an error was made, but not
actually vitiate that error. It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* aware of
Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level of oversight of affiliate
governance is occurring that there being significant affiliates with provisions like this
not be known?
Like functionally the entire participant list of the email thread to date, I don't
think there was any absence of good faith from key actors. But nor do I think it's
"merely" (and it's a very big "merely" indeed) an optics
complaint. There are genuine accidental COI issues that arise, as well as the instance
raising genuine concerns at the decision-making and awareness of community values that
anyone operating in such a significant consulting role in the most critical field of
discussions the movement has had in a decade.