Domas Mituzas
wrote:
Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a public vote across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured), I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a popularity contest.
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you guys should resign.
You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura. The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions with total disregard as to what we might think.
From what I see, the only board member doing anything around here, or making the slightest attempt to communicate with the communities as much as possible, is Florence. And what a surprise, her seat is up for grabs.
Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and not going totake it anymore.
Sorry if this sound rude or confrontational, but it seems that this is the only way to get anyone's attention, who is on the board these days as they seem to only pay attention to whats said on here and on meta. So that being the case, it gets increasingly frustrating to have to be civil and not get anything in return. So please see where I am coming from, and the others who feel the same way.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Community_petition
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Domas Mituzas
wrote:
Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a public vote across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured), I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a popularity contest.
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you guys should resign.
Doing what it best for Wikimedia is not always what is the most popular. Thankfully at least part of the board selection process is not a popularity contest.
[...]
Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and not going totake it anymore.
Please do not speak for the entire community. You and other people on foundation-l may not like the way everything goes but that does not mean that this is the opinion of the entire community.
Bryan
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura. The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions with total disregard as to what we might think.
I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here, but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not want should be ignored off-hand.
Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically removed, and replaced with community members who are actually dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that board members without such dedication do not belong on the board beyond the next election.
--Andrew Whitworth
I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that took a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear about these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who don't totally ignore the will of the community."
As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue, unnecessary and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community - and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We can't require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia, but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea nonetheless.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura. The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions with total disregard as to what we might think.
I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here, but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not want should be ignored off-hand.
Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically removed, and replaced with community members who are actually dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that board members without such dedication do not belong on the board beyond the next election.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that took a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear about these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who don't totally ignore the will of the community."
As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue, unnecessary and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community - and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We can't require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia, but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea nonetheless.
In one word: Thank you. I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's 'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no confidence out of this affair. It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time. But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-... words).
Michael
2008/4/28 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's 'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no confidence out of this affair. It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time. But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-... words).
I figure the board's doing a scary and frequently difficult and tedious job, so am quite happy to assume stuff will be clarified after the fact if it isn't before. I'm sure it will be soon enough :-)
- d.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so quickly to revolutionary ultimatums.
Nothing I said was revolutionary nor an ultimatum. I said, as has always been true, that if the community disapproves of the performance of certain board members it will become evident in the next board election. I said this precisely to prevent further devolving here on foundation-l: Emails are ignored, so save your opinions for the next election. All our opinions can be heard then.
Confrontational statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided.
I didn't say the entire board lacked commitment, and I didn't say that any one particular member of the board did. Maybe all board members are perfectly committed to our community. The general opinion on all these things will become evident before too long.
--Andrew Whitworth
It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement* to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership organization.
Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter, if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an election to fill Board seats.
I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.
Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here, but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not want should be ignored off-hand.
--Andrew Whitworth
Being pragmatic then: 1) trying to convince the existing board that they've made a mistake. 2) voting (with respect to at least the positions that remain open to be voted on ) for candidates who ware willing to state they oppose this measure and will work on the board to reverse it. 3) make plain our total repugnance for officers of the foundation who talk about the people who create Wikipedia as not having or deserving the right to the running of the project. 4) "Self-selecting fiduciary boards" are a well established way of preventing organisations from reflecting the will of their actual constituency. In traditional organisations, where the effective resources comes from the largest contributors, they serve that interest. However, the effect of the funding on the success of Wikipedia is very small as compared to the effect of the work, & the board should reflect this.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement* to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership organization.
Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter, if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an election to fill Board seats.
I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.
Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here, but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not want should be ignored off-hand.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Goodman wrote:
- make plain our total repugnance for officers of the foundation who talk about the people who create Wikipedia as not having or deserving the right to the running of the project.
The people who create Wikipedia *do* run the projects, that is, they run Wikipedia. What they don't run is the Foundation or its board of trustees. I'm surprised when I hear people on this list suggest that the community can only get its voice heard every two years, when we're in fact editing Wikipedia every day, including the wiki pages that constitute its policies. The volunteer community also writes the software that is used.
- "Self-selecting fiduciary boards" are a well established way of preventing organisations from reflecting the will of their actual constituency.
This was discussed already in 2003 when Jimbo set up the Wikimedia Foundation as it now is, rather than as a "democratic" membership organization. At the time, the opposition was voiced most strongly among the Germans, and one year later they founded their "verein" (membership association), Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., that became the role model for how to organize a chapter.
However, still today WM-DE has only about 400 members, which is far fewer than the volunteer community in that country. The idea, that all Wikipedia contributors should want to have a say in a democratic fashion, turned out to be little more than a beautiful dream. There are some who want this, and they are free to join the chapter, but they are a minority. Shock and horror, even when they are given the opportunity, most contributors seem happy to have no formal influence at all. This could be taken as an indication that Jimbo was right in 2003. If you claim that people feel left out on a large scale, this is something you need to prove. Because Germany is proof of the opposite.
Most countries have yet to organize chapters. Nothing stops them from doing so, as far as I know, but they don't seem to be in any hurry. Instead of getting themselves organized, some people cry out on this list that the WMF board of trustees should do the work for them. This is a great shame and a waste of time. Democracy can only grow from below, never be given from above.
Board elections, volunteer councils, chapter seats, or not. They are only decoration. The WMF was incorporated as something else than a membership organization. They keep the servers running and promote free knowledge. I think they do a pretty good job. But they're not a membership organization. If you want one, you need to create it yourself. Who's stopping you?
Background: I'm user:LA2. I was present when WM-DE was founded in Berlin in 2004, but never joined. In 2007 I helped organize the Swedish chapter and was elected to its board. I'm posting to this list as an individual.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
- "Self-selecting fiduciary boards" are a well established way of preventing organisations from reflecting the will of their actual constituency.
This was discussed already in 2003 when Jimbo set up the Wikimedia Foundation as it now is, rather than as a "democratic" membership organization.
You may want to read the comment by Alex T. Roshuk at http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756) for a different history. According to the bylaws in 2003, when Jimbo set up the Wikimedia Foundation, it was a membership organization.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Board elections, volunteer councils, chapter seats, or not. They are only decoration. The WMF was incorporated as something else than a membership organization. They keep the servers running and promote free knowledge. I think they do a pretty good job. But they're not a membership organization. If you want one, you need to create it yourself. Who's stopping you?
To be precise, the original bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation provided for membership, but it was never implemented. The bylaws were subsequently revised to drop the reference to membership as obsolete, since the foundation had been operating for years without it. Some months later, there was a bit of protest over the change, at least on the English Wikipedia. One of the reasons to incorporate chapters in the board selection process is because they are generally intended to be membership organizations, so that option is effectively re-opened. Membership can be administered more easily and with less overhead at the chapter level than the global foundation could manage.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement* to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership organization.
Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter, if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an election to fill Board seats.
Florence, I believe this post goes a long way toward addressing your surprise at the relative lack of reaction to this proposal.
Remember back when membership was taken away, and the line was that membership was only a formality that didn't matter? How quickly the tune has changed.
I wonder, is Brad speaking here on behalf of the Foundation? If not, and the foundation intends to maintain its "common voice", I suggest you get Brad put on moderation and/or ask him to refrain from such insulting comments in the future.
Or am I the only one insulted by this rant?
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Anthony" wikimail@inbox.org
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement* to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership organization.
Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter, if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an election to fill Board seats.
Florence, I believe this post goes a long way toward addressing your surprise at the relative lack of reaction to this proposal.
Remember back when membership was taken away, and the line was that membership was only a formality that didn't matter? How quickly the tune has changed.
I wonder, is Brad speaking here on behalf of the Foundation? If not, and the foundation intends to maintain its "common voice", I suggest you get Brad put on moderation and/or ask him to refrain from such insulting comments in the future.
Or am I the only one insulted by this rant?
Uhm... I'm not sure that Brad could, in fact, speak for the Foundation, given that he resigned over a year ago.
Philippe
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wonder, is Brad speaking here on behalf of the Foundation? If not, and the foundation intends to maintain its "common voice", I suggest you get Brad put on moderation and/or ask him to refrain from such insulting comments in the future.
Er, how could Brad be speaking on behalf of the Foundation? He is no longer an employee.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wonder, is Brad speaking here on behalf of the Foundation? If not, and the foundation intends to maintain its "common voice", I suggest you get Brad put on moderation and/or ask him to refrain from such insulting comments in the future.
Er, how could Brad be speaking on behalf of the Foundation? He is no longer an employee.
Wow, sorry about that. I know Brad "resigned", I just got him confused with someone else.
My apologies to everyone for *my* rant.
I am somewhat perturbed by the reaction here.
Perhaps this was not the best approach for the Board to restructure its membership, but to leap from that to the assumed bad faith a number of participants here have expressed is highly disturbing.
This has not been an episode of healthy skepticism. I assume that everyone has the overall projects' best interests in mind, but the level of distrust is disturbing, and does not evidently stem primarily or originally from the actual chapters select two of the board members proposal.
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people actually upset about?
Personally, I am more disturbed by the justification for the change than by the change itself.
From where I sit, it appears that the Board:
A. Decided to change its makeup in a way that would make only 30% of the Board be directly elected by editors, which is what a "community seat" had been understood to mean heretofore. B. Decided to change the definition of "community seat" to include seats appointed by third parties (the chapters, of which a vanishingly small minority of editors are members), so as to make it appear that the principle of a community majority was still being followed.
As far as "A" is concerned, I have no strong feeling. I don't really see representation of the chapters as a particularly good or bad thing, just as I don't see representation of the "community" as a good or bad thing. The community, the chapters, the Foundation, and even the individual projects as such, are all only a means to an end. If the Board had come out and said, "we've decided it is in the best interests of the projects if a majority of the board no longer is elected by the community, for reasons X Y and Z," I personally wouldn't have had a big problem with it ... although, like everyone else, I would still have preferred some open discussion before the fact.
But "B," frankly, makes my blood boil. I find it hard to believe that anyone above the age of 4 would be expected to fall for this kind of ploy. More to the point, I am concerned that a climate of obfuscation and doublespeak, even more than the existing climate of non-communication and opacity, *will* cause long-term harm to the projects.
Frankly, people who refuse to respect the intelligence of Wikimedians -- by which I mean, in this case, our ability to identify and reject BS -- really shouldn't be involved in the management of the projects, regardless of whether anyone now has the power to remove them or not. In this regard, I sincerely hope that I and others have misinterpreted a substantial part of this discussion.
Cheers,
Sam Henderson / Visviva (EN Wiktionary/Wikipedia)
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people actually upset about?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Samuel Henderson wrote:
B. Decided to change the definition of "community seat" to include seats appointed by third parties (the chapters, of which a vanishingly small minority of editors are members), so as to make it appear that the principle of a community majority was still being followed.
"so as to make it appear"
But "B," frankly, makes my blood boil. I find it hard to believe that anyone above the age of 4 would be expected to fall for this kind of ploy.
"ploy"
I can assure you that none of that bad-faith understanding of this is valid.
In this regard, I sincerely hope that I and others have misinterpreted a substantial part of this discussion.
I believe that you have.
The board believes that the chapter mechanism is working and workable and should be supported and expanded. It provides for an excellent and formal means for extending community control of the projects and of the future direction of the Foundation, with some interesting and useful advantages over on-wiki election... and some interesting disadvantages as well.
But there is absolutely no sense in interpreting this as some kind of removal of power from the community.
--Jimbo
Thank you for this reassurance. I am astonished that the Board would not anticipate this (widespread) interpretation of events, or recognize that this change would be regarded by many as a power grab by insiders.
Again, for my part, the presentation of this as if it were not removing power from the editing community (which it certainly is) is far more troubling than the actual removal of power (which may indeed be a wise move). I remain troubled.
A general observation, if I may:
The assumption of good faith becomes increasingly difficult to sustain as the power relations become less symmetric. (The limiting case of this would be assuming good faith in national leaders, which the events of the past decade have shown to be extraordinarily unwise.) At the moment the difference in power between individual editors and Board members is enormous, and growing. Much of this is for eminently sound legal and strategic reasons, but the members of the Board should understand that this means that they will need to account scrupulously for their actions if they expect to be regarded as good-faith actors. To expect otherwise is not only unrealistic, but frankly underestimates the intelligence of the editing community.
Cheers,
Sam
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: <snip>
I can assure you that none of that bad-faith understanding of this is valid.
In this regard, I sincerely hope that I and others have misinterpreted a substantial part
of
this discussion.
I believe that you have.
The board believes that the chapter mechanism is working and workable and should be supported and expanded. It provides for an excellent and formal means for extending community control of the projects and of the future direction of the Foundation, with some interesting and useful advantages over on-wiki election... and some interesting disadvantages as well.
But there is absolutely no sense in interpreting this as some kind of removal of power from the community.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Samuel Henderson wrote:
Again, for my part, the presentation of this as if it were not removing power from the editing community (which it certainly is) is far more troubling than the actual removal of power (which may indeed be a wise move). I remain troubled.
It absolutely is not a removal of power from the editing community.
Full stop.
OK, I really must be misunderstanding something. Here is what I think I know:
1. The proportion of seats directly elected by the editing community (i.e. in an election where the only substantial requirement is based on edits) is being reduced to 30%, more or less. 2. This reduction is taking place, in part, in order to allow representation of the chapters. 3. Chapters are not directly tied to the editing community. Indeed, one of their strengths is that they represent (or seek to represent) a broader population of stakeholders, significantly including non-editing users. I believe this was specifically mentioned on a parallel thread.
If the above are correct, it would seem to follow that the change is a substantial reduction in the power held by the *editing* community, in favor of chapters which are -- by design -- not directly linked to the editing community. What am I missing?
Let me stress again that I don't think this change is necessarily a bad thing. In the nature of a wiki, the editing community on each project is self-selecting and frequently myopic, losing sight of the broader purpose of the project. Chapters may prove to be much more reliable stewards of the WMF mission. But whether good or bad, this change does seem to be a historically significant shift in power away from editors as such, and toward a somewhat more nebulous notion of "the community." This simple fact (if it is indeed a fact) should not be, and should not have been, obscured.
Cheers,
Sam
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It absolutely is not a removal of power from the editing community.
Full stop.
OK, I really must be misunderstanding something. Here is what I think I know:
1. The proportion of seats directly elected by the editing community (i.e. in an election where the only substantial requirement is based on edits) is being reduced to 30%, more or less. 2. This reduction is taking place, in part, in order to allow representation of the chapters. 3. Chapters are not directly tied to the editing community. Indeed, one of their strengths is that they represent (or seek to represent) a broader population of stakeholders, significantly including non-editing users. I believe this was specifically mentioned on a parallel thread.
If the above are correct, it would seem to follow that the change is a substantial reduction in the power held by the *editing* community, in favor of chapters which are -- by design -- not directly linked to the editing community. What am I missing?
Let me stress again that I don't think this change is necessarily a bad thing. In the nature of a wiki, the editing community on each project is self-selecting and frequently myopic, losing sight of the broader purpose of the project. Chapters may prove to be much more reliable stewards of the WMF mission. But whether good or bad, this change does seem to be a historically significant shift in power away from editors as such, and toward a somewhat more nebulous notion of "the community." This simple fact (if it is indeed a fact) should not be, and should not have been, obscured.
Cheers,
Sam
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It absolutely is not a removal of power from the editing community.
Full stop.
Samuel Henderson wrote:
What am I missing?
There is a general move toward strengthening and expanding the chapter system as a scalable and thoughtful way to build the global movement. I anticipate serious growth in the chapters and chapter membership and for it to eventually be a much more common mechanism for editor participation in governance.
I would personally like to see it become the default assumption that active editors become members of a chapter, not a requirement, but an assumption that most people make.
Then why not wait to do this move until your vision of essentially default chapter membership is actually a reality? The change as it stands is premature, and undefined. It's giving chapters something that they, as of yet, have no use for.
-Dan On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Samuel Henderson wrote:
What am I missing?
There is a general move toward strengthening and expanding the chapter system as a scalable and thoughtful way to build the global movement. I anticipate serious growth in the chapters and chapter membership and for it to eventually be a much more common mechanism for editor participation in governance.
I would personally like to see it become the default assumption that active editors become members of a chapter, not a requirement, but an assumption that most people make.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Then why not wait to do this move until your vision of essentially default chapter membership is actually a reality?
And why not wait until the encyclopedia is finished before putting it up on a website for people to look at? The Wikimedia Foundation is a work in progress. For all the talk about being a unique organization, needing to think outside the box of traditional models, and partaking of the character of its community, sometimes I think we miss the ways in which it actually has those qualities. As some people have suggested, I'm sure the chapters will "be bold" in creating their part of the equation here, and will continue to "edit" it for future improvements. I would hope we do not stop evolving the global foundation while we wait for something to come along with the perfect conditions for change.
--Michael Snow
Your comparison, aside from being a strawman, does not even begin to compare to the difference between a board restructure, and whether the encyclopedia is online or not.
Nobody's asking for perfect conditions. But we'd like to see some sort of certainty and definition, rather than "we'll figure it out as we go along". The board is not a wiki, it is a board, and in wanting to bring professionalism to the board, actions should be well thought out and planned before being taken. There's no real good reason that I can see that this needs to be done immediately, rather than getting the chapter structure in an actually useful shape. In fact, there's many good reasons to wait, not the least of which being that the chapters will then actually represent people (and thus be "community seats"), and have had time to develop a plan on how to coordinate who they choose for the board.
-Dan On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Then why not wait to do this move until your vision of essentially default chapter membership is actually a reality?
And why not wait until the encyclopedia is finished before putting it up on a website for people to look at? The Wikimedia Foundation is a work in progress. For all the talk about being a unique organization, needing to think outside the box of traditional models, and partaking of the character of its community, sometimes I think we miss the ways in which it actually has those qualities. As some people have suggested, I'm sure the chapters will "be bold" in creating their part of the equation here, and will continue to "edit" it for future improvements. I would hope we do not stop evolving the global foundation while we wait for something to come along with the perfect conditions for change.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/29 Samuel Henderson samueljhenderson@gmail.com:
Thank you for this reassurance. I am astonished that the Board would not anticipate this (widespread) interpretation of events, or recognize that this change would be regarded by many as a power grab by insiders.
They're still not good at assuming an assumption of bad faith?
- d.
Samuel Henderson wrote:
Thank you for this reassurance. I am astonished that the Board would not anticipate this (widespread) interpretation of events, or recognize that this change would be regarded by many as a power grab by insiders.
Again, for my part, the presentation of this as if it were not removing power from the editing community (which it certainly is) is far more troubling than the actual removal of power (which may indeed be a wise move). I remain troubled.
A general observation, if I may:
The assumption of good faith becomes increasingly difficult to sustain as the power relations become less symmetric. (The limiting case of this would be assuming good faith in national leaders, which the events of the past decade have shown to be extraordinarily unwise.) At the moment the difference in power between individual editors and Board members is enormous, and growing. Much of this is for eminently sound legal and strategic reasons, but the members of the Board should understand that this means that they will need to account scrupulously for their actions if they expect to be regarded as good-faith actors. To expect otherwise is not only unrealistic, but frankly underestimates the intelligence of the editing community.
Cheers,
Sam
Right, but which "power" are we exactly talking about ?
Ant
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people actually upset about?
People are upset they are not consulted and start seeing conspiracies behind it. Apparently "being bold" and "assume good faith" does not apply towards the board...
Being bold has different implications when you're at the leadership of a multi million dollar nonprofit organization, rather than trying to make a controversial edit to an article. When you make an edit to an article, it can be reverted. But bold changes like this by the board cannot be so easily undone, if the damage from them can even be undone at all, and the "bold, revert, discuss, assume good faith" argument does not apply here.
But apparently, assuming good faith does not apply to people who criticize the critics either.
-Dan On Apr 29, 2008, at 4:31 AM, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people actually upset about?
People are upset they are not consulted and start seeing conspiracies behind it. Apparently "being bold" and "assume good faith" does not apply towards the board...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wonder, is Brad speaking here on behalf of the Foundation? If not, and the foundation intends to maintain its "common voice", I suggest you get Brad put on moderation and/or ask him to refrain from such insulting comments in the future.
Er, how could Brad be speaking on behalf of the Foundation? He is no longer an employee.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Toiling on a project is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.
I disagree with this and think it is wrong that it is possible to be a Board member or Foundation employee with no editing experience and no involvement in the community. It will always be the case that their first inclination was not participation, but was rather money or power. Further, in my experience, the best leaders are those who have also served on the front lines. Without this first hand experience you may develop surface-level knowledge of how the community works, but never understanding. The more Board members and Foundation employees there are that do not have this experience, the further those bodies distance themselves from the community.
Hoi, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The board and the organisation are relatively unimportant; their function is to facilitate.They cannot do much else because they do not scale. They cannot support the 300+ languages that need support and they don't. It is not that they do not want to, they cannot. Languages are supported by Betawiki and its community. The real power is in doing things, making things work better. It is humanly impossible for either the board or the organisation to do more than enable the community to function.
When you consider what needs to be done, like making our content continually and consistently available, find some university or technical high school students to work on this or find money and hire some contractors. It is not as if this cannot be done and it is not as if you need the board's or the organisation's permission to do this. What you need is to make sure that it is done in harmony with the existing people and infrastructure.
You do not need anything to make a difference except for initiative and hard work to pull things off. I agree with you 100% that it takes involvement in order to understand what the issues are. The difference is that it goes two ways. If you want more people from the editing community to be part of the organisational infrastructure of our projects / communities these people will have to get their hands dirty and involve themselves. Editors, even prominent editors, do not necessarily make good organisers when editing and talking is all they do. Sadly as people grow more into these other aspects of what makes us function, their thinking will slowly but surely diverge from what their old crowd considers to be valid and true This is imho why some think that people "sell out" once they have a new role. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Toiling on a project is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition
to
be a Board member at WMF.
I disagree with this and think it is wrong that it is possible to be a Board member or Foundation employee with no editing experience and no involvement in the community. It will always be the case that their first inclination was not participation, but was rather money or power. Further, in my experience, the best leaders are those who have also served on the front lines. Without this first hand experience you may develop surface-level knowledge of how the community works, but never understanding. The more Board members and Foundation employees there are that do not have this experience, the further those bodies distance themselves from the community. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian wrote:
I disagree with this and think it is wrong that it is possible to be a Board member or Foundation employee with no editing experience and no involvement in the community. It will always be the case that their first inclination was not participation, but was rather money or power.
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power".
As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Eben is a lawyer, in many ways the foremost lawyer dealing with free licensing issues. He has, in his career, negotiated important deals with major corporations.
Further, in my experience, the best leaders are those who have also served on the front lines.
And there are more front lines in our mission than the editing front lines.
2008/4/30 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power". As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Excellent! So when are we drafting him? :-D
- d.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power". As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Excellent! So when are we drafting him? :-D
I am joining to David's exclaim and question :)
David Gerard wrote:
2008/4/30 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power". As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Excellent! So when are we drafting him? :-D
Heh, he is just one random example, there are many like him.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2008/4/30 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power". As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Excellent! So when are we drafting him? :-D
Heh, he is just one random example, there are many like him.
Is he interested? If not, then he's not a good example. If so, then why doesn't he start participate on the mailing lists, and become involved in the community? Note that Brian said "with no editing experience and no involvement in the community", not just "not a Wikipedian".
2008/4/30 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Is he interested? If not, then he's not a good example. If so, then why doesn't he start participate on the mailing lists, and become involved in the community? Note that Brian said "with no editing experience and no involvement in the community", not just "not a Wikipedian".
I was most pleased to discover many Creative Commons people (including Joi Ito) reading commons-l. Obviously, there's a common interest on that list.
OTOH, foundation-l could be more than a little offputting to people not used to our little ways (it's offputting enough for those who are).
- d.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:47 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Is he interested? If not, then he's not a good example. If so, then why doesn't he start participate on the mailing lists, and become involved in the community? Note that Brian said "with no editing experience and no involvement in the community", not just "not a Wikipedian".
I was most pleased to discover many Creative Commons people (including Joi Ito) reading commons-l. Obviously, there's a common interest on that list.
OTOH, foundation-l could be more than a little offputting to people not used to our little ways (it's offputting enough for those who are).
There are lots of parts of the WMF that are offputting to people. But if someone finds *all* the different activities of the WMF to be offputting, why in the world would they want to be on its board?
Personally, I do believe that all board members or prospective board members should participate on foundation-l at least once in a while, but that isn't even what I suggested above. Someone who participated only on commons-l might be OK, though I'd hope s/he'd at least drop a line here as to why s/he doesn't participate here, and what could be done to improve the situation so that s/he would.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
There are lots of parts of the WMF that are offputting to people. But if someone finds *all* the different activities of the WMF to be offputting, why in the world would they want to be on its board?
Beg your pardon, how exactly are "considering the atmosphere on foundation-l unpleasant enough not to join it" and "finding all the different activites of the WMF to be offputting" related?
Of course we don't want people to join the WMF's board if they consider the WMF in globo to be 'offputting'. But surely, "finding foundation-l a not so nice place to be" wouldn't be a contra reason in my books (yes, implied self-criticism...
Personally, I do believe that all board members or prospective board members should participate on foundation-l at least once in a while, but that isn't even what I suggested above. Someone who participated only on commons-l might be OK, though I'd hope s/he'd at least drop a line here as to why s/he doesn't participate here, and what could be done to improve the situation so that s/he would.
I guess you'd hear three words: Signal-to-noise ratio. The civility has rather improved, I think, though 'assume good faith' could still be a bit more widely spread. But the signal-to-noise ration is still at a fairly embarrassing level.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brian wrote:
I disagree with this and think it is wrong that it is possible to be a Board member or Foundation employee with no editing experience and no involvement in the community. It will always be the case that their first inclination was not participation, but was rather money or power.
I do not agree. There are more types of people in the world than Wikipedians and people whose "first inclination" is "money or power".
As a fine example, consider Eben Moglen, longtime attorney and board member for the Free Software Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
Eben would bring a wealth of experience to our board, and anyone who imagines that his motives for taking part in this would be "money or power" simply does not know Eben and his long history.
Well, there are two types of external candidates who have been suggested at various points: 1) people with strong credentials related to our mission, but not specifically in Wikimedia projects, such as Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig, etc.; and 2) people with experience in non-profit administration and management, but not related to our mission.
I personally have much more of a problem with #2 than #1. I think some of #1 would be valuable, but probably not as a /majority/ of the board. I would object to any of #2.
-Mark
P.S. - See also http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/12-non-profit-organizations/, and especially the hilariously defensive comments from the nonprofit-industry rent-seekers.
IMHO the problem is here focused.
We imagine the experts like Christus which comes and start a revolution.
The question is: are they so expert to make a change in the environment where they will work?
I have already said some years ago that the communities choose their leaders (non the wikipedia community but a community in general), when communities are driven by other persons which are not the leaders, we have a manifest organigram and a different concealed organigram. With this condition frictions, disputes and bad feelings start.
The elections of the communities assure that the leaders are represented and the two organigrams are partially overlapped.
In this new restructure the two organigrams are badly overlapped. Putting experts in a complex environment like Wikipedia's communities it's a risk not for Wikimedia projects, but for themselves because they could not have the power to introduce a "new deal".
Ilario
Delirium wrote:
Well, there are two types of external candidates who have been suggested at various points: 1) people with strong credentials related to our mission, but not specifically in Wikimedia projects, such as Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig, etc.; and 2) people with experience in non-profit administration and management, but not related to our mission.
Delirium wrote:
Well, there are two types of external candidates who have been suggested at various points: 1) people with strong credentials related to our mission, but not specifically in Wikimedia projects, such as Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig, etc.; and 2) people with experience in non-profit administration and management, but not related to our mission.
I personally have much more of a problem with #2 than #1. I think some of #1 would be valuable, but probably not as a /majority/ of the board. I would object to any of #2.
One way that the problems with #2 can be defused is by identifying the specific need, advertising that need in the community, and only searching outside if no suitable person can be found in the community.
This was done for the treasurer, and despite my feeling that the requirements were too high, I need to recognize that such a procedure was followed in the search for a treasurer.
Ec
Jason Safoutin wrote:
Domas Mituzas
wrote:
Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a public vote across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured), I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a popularity contest.
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the board likes it or not, we elected you.
Domas was not elected. He and Michael were appointed to fill temporary vacancies, and it was stated then that they would need to stand for election in July 2008. This does not personally reflect on either of them as Board members; that much would have been clarified when that election takes place.
And those who were appointed have the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you guys should resign.
That's certainly the essence of free speech, but let's not be too quick to assume that this is the solution that the entire community seeks.
From what I see, the only board member doing anything around here, or making the slightest attempt to communicate with the communities as much as possible, is Florence. And what a surprise, her seat is up for grabs.
While it is easy to imagine her standing on a hill, arms raised holding the entire outhouse above her head, one still needs to credit Domas and Michael Snow for sticking their toes into the hole that was left when the outhouse was raised.
Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and not going totake it anymore.
In the vernacular. "Them's fightin' words." Robert Mugabe was quite effective in ending white rule in Rhodesia, but beyond the revolution one often needs to look for different skills.
Sorry if this sound rude or confrontational, but it seems that this is the only way to get anyone's attention, who is on the board these days as they seem to only pay attention to whats said on here and on meta. So that being the case, it gets increasingly frustrating to have to be civil and not get anything in return. So please see where I am coming from, and the others who feel the same way.
I don't plan to sign the petition, though I can't ignore the fact that it sends a strong message. I still prefer to be putting positive efforts into some variant of Wikicouncil. Without some kind of focussed positive alternative it is difficult to imagine what the community can possibly accomplish.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jason Safoutin wrote:
<elide some pugilistic and scatological metaphors>
I don't plan to sign the petition, though I can't ignore the fact that it sends a strong message. I still prefer to be putting positive efforts into some variant of Wikicouncil. Without some kind of focussed positive alternative it is difficult to imagine what the community can possibly accomplish.
*shakes head*
Me neither. Personally I think it would have been better that if the board was displeased with the result of the exploratory body it itself put in motion, it should have simply entirely discarded its suggestions and instituted a completely different kind of body (one of its own liking), rather than punting the ball back into the community to work at, without any bond with the Board of Trustees whatsoever. To me that is the action of a fearful, inward turning Board. That said, if some one wants my support in any shape or form for a council that has to *earn* its standing by its own actions, I am at their service.
Yours in Wikimedia;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro
2008/4/28 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Jason Safoutin wrote:
I don't plan to sign the petition, though I can't ignore the fact that it sends a strong message. I still prefer to be putting positive
Indeed it does. With signatories like Seth Finkelstein, it just needs Daniel Brandt and Lir.
- d.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:54 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/28 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Jason Safoutin wrote:
I don't plan to sign the petition, though I can't ignore the fact that it sends a strong message. I still prefer to be putting positive
Indeed it does. With signatories like Seth Finkelstein, it just needs Daniel Brandt and Lir.
Hm. It looks like you are ignoring the fact that the petition is signed by significant en.wp contributors, too. As well as the fact that this is a revolt led by people from en.wp.
On Mon Apr 28 22:54:41 UTC 2008 David Gerard wrote Indeed it does. With signatories like Seth Finkelstein ...
A true ad-hominem argument.
My apologies to the organizers. If I had thought ahead enough to realize that my spur-of-the-moment action might be used by the Wikimedia Foundation's UK press contact to discredit the petition, I wouldn't have signed it (I'm bad at politics). I'd un-sign if that would help anything, but I suppose the damage is done now.
"A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days" [Stan Freberg] (Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, about the Declaration of Independence) J: Come on and put your name on the dotted line. F: I got to be particular what I sign. J: It's just a piece of paper. F: Just a piece of paper, that's what you say. J: Come on and put your signature on the list. F: It looks to have a very subversive twist. J: How silly to assume it; won't you "nom de plume" it today? J: You're so skittish -- who possibly could care if you do? F: The Un-British Activities Committee, that's who!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org