-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for your opinions. I'd like to clarify my criticism. What Mike has done and is doing is honorable; he's dedicating efforts and patience to the community. He has nothing to do with my questioning. What I see is that WMF doesn't always publish the problems they're addressing, not in time, not entirely and not in a defined and known place. It seems that the WMF feels it is the correct way to communicate their actions once they're done, synthesizing briefly why to a selected (or random?) sample of the community. Some answers here even suggest that secrecy is necessary, that informing the community about what and why the Board is doing is not feasible or desirable as a norm and as a duty, and that communicating about the situation, intentions and actions of the WMF should be exceptional and under the community pressure, pressure that should be channeled and controlled through trusted community members. I'm not trying to accuse but to put in relief a certain vision of WMF: an enterprise that must survive legally and economically, like any other enterprise. The community is some sort of public, clients and users that one must manage through public relations at best or indifference. In summary, this seems a vision of little accountability towards the community. In contrast, I think the community has other expectations. They feel they own the projects because they made them, they're making them, they will make them. They're not consumers. They're the engine. They identify with the project. They share (more or less) a vision and they search for an ethic together. I think that in their minds, though they owe a lot to the founders, they now are the main part of this adventure. The WMF is paid by them to address what they will tell them to address. According to this vision, the accountability towards the community is total. My words are not good and my vision short. I beg someone with better eloquence and diplomatic skills, with more experience and insight to develop the idea. What I propose is to create a public space where the WMF would announce immediately the claims and pressures they receive, and how they will respond. (just a copy/paste of mails for example). People who want to follow, comment or act upon these kind of news would subscribe to a RSS feed, maybe with a filter for chapters. Correctly set up, this channel between the WMF and the community could be synergetic. It could avoid triggering anger, edit wars and demissions. It could be used as a brain tank to collect data and ideas about the problems that the WMF is facing, even when the WMF is doomed to act on short terms. If the WMF accepts to feed the community with its problems and intentions and listens to the corresponding feedback, most of the communication problems would be defused, in my opinion. I think it is worth an experimental try at least. If it yields positively constructive results, then maybe there should be such a page for each big category of problems that the WMF usually deals with. Oh well, just a (badly expressed) idea. On 05/06/2010 11:29, Bod Notbod wrote:

Keegan Peterzell wrote: I would suggest that instead of a wall between the community and the foundation, there should be built a bridge. A form of consultation by a small group of "wise heads" from the communities, who know how they work; not as a decision making body, but purely informing about the realities in the various communities. There hasn't historically been a need to listen to the community for but a tiny fraction of features to the software, which are espescially sensitive. There isn't an absolute need to build a consensus for most trivial and crystal clear improvements to the software. The problem is determining which changes are going to be controversial, and which not. To repeat, the community at large need only be rarely given a look in before the implementation, but there needs to be some review by folks who understand viscerally how the animal (community) functions. This didn't used to be a problem at all, because all the developers in fact came from the communities, and full well knew us, warts and all. Ceterum censeo, I think a minimal group of wise folks from the community should be brought in to identify all the changes that are totally uncontroversial. I don't think there has *ever* been a case where a requested enchancement that had reached a community consensus being implemented had caused complaints by any but the regular trolls. I could imagine serious complaints being leveled if the implementation didn't adhere to the consensus reached, but that is just about all. I am sorry, I just can't parse what you are suggesting here. This doesn't correspond to anything real in the past or anything hypothetically in our future. There has never been a "Get off my lawn!" attitude anywhere. What people have said quite often is: "Please explain your actions, and what variety of justification are they based on, pretty please, with a cherry on top!" And absent a clear and present danger, "Do join us, we respect and value involvement, within the context of the normal operation of our community, from foundation functionaries, no matter how senior." The above really is an egregious case of the excluded middle. Ceterum censeo, the fuss could have been reduced, if quietly some wise heads from the community might have just whispered to the vector-crew; "Great job, overall, but collapsing the interwiki links just won't fly. Best not even try." I think the point is that it would be nice if there was somebody from the community who would be tasked with heading foundation folks aside, before the fact, when they are in danger of doing something seriously controversial that really *does* require a consensus reached. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Keegan Peterzell wrote: Only in cases where the senior functionaries come with a bull-dozer. Usually benign lawn-mowers are welcomed. Sentence of what? I don't understand what you are wanting to write? I am talking about a group of people, who would represent the communities. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think this is totally true and needs to be remembered. Working with the community shouldn't be a frustrating experience. [Or maybe it's just that long-term community members have gotten inured to a certain level of frustration and therefore don't even notice anymore? I can't tell]. [snip] Is it perhaps fair to suggest that changes that more people see are likely to be more controversial? Usability and fundraising both are particularly difficult in this regard, since huge numbers of people (everyone who uses the site) are affected by those changes. On the other hand, I rarely see controversy over, say, a new feature that some people want but most will never use. Along with this, there are certain hot button issues, such as: * deletion of content, for any reason (but particularly anything that could be connected to censorship or legal repression) those actions will always be controversial, and for pretty good reason -- such actions come potentially close to violating our core values, and therefore should be examined closely. I'm trying to think of what other always-controversial topics are, on the WMF scale (as opposed to on the projects). Maybe we should make up a list. (And then distribute "wrong version" stickers). -- phoebe

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Oh, I didn't get to this earlier because I replied from my mobile device. Cimon, seriously give me a pen and I'll write the first sentence. I'm one for stepping up to the plate. Let's start a meta page where people can register thoughts/complaints/grievances/joy/sorry to WMF staff. If it is a serious concern, the staff can respond after someone consults with them and receive either a you can handle it or I can handle it response. How would selection go? I dunno. But it would facilitate communication issues, and if you have enough experience working with staffers it should be an easy thing. I can shoot about all of the ones that matter in the programs department an email and get a quick response. You could too. So could everyone on this list, for the most part. If you really want to do this, I'm game and I'm sure others are as well. ...'cept that pesky MZMcBride :) -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan