Anthere: ..... First noone said the board is not working hard. I think we all know that and appreciate it. list on your own village pump ? ? useful ? Please do not say that others can not comment unless they spent more time on the issue, they spent lots of time on other issues and still have an opinion about this. One of the virtues of a democracy is that everyone can participate in a discussion even when they are outsiders (or seen as such by the insiders), even when they are (perceived as) unreasonable or one-sided. I try to give reasonable, balanced comments and suggestions, so please do not tell me I am de facto an outsider on this issue. This whole discussion is not about blaming anyone. It discusses where improvements could be made. Since you asked what could be more transparent, three examples: To keep close to the subject at hand: the way that new officers were appointed is a prime example, It came out of the blue. No discussion about definition of roles. I got very much the impression that officers were to define their own role. When Erik Moeller stated how he wanted to act, I did not see much response from the board or anyone else. Of course the whole community could have started to debate the new roles after people were appointed, that hardly happened either. It is a bit more difficult when people have been appointed already. Secondly I already mentioned the current discussion about reforming the decision making process, which is taking place. Jimbo hinted to it when I met him in Amsterdam months ago and voiced similar concerns as I did now. I asked if Wikimania would be a good place to discuss this more openly and he agreed, but his answer on a question by Tim Starling was something close to "We are working on reform and you'll hear more in a few months time." Lastly in the beginning most board meetings were open, either for anyone to comment online, or to read the full proceedings later. Now most board meetings and even some wikis are closed and at best we get to hear the actual decision and a very concise rationale. I can understand that some issues deal with outside partners or specific persons in our community and are sensitive. Also meeting with 50 people talking at the same time on IRC is not productive. Why not publish most discussions verbatim with bits taken away that are sensitive and a short explanation of what has been left out. Is it that most meetings now deal with sensitive issues, and did not in the past? Anthere, you did not yet comment on a the lack of clear definition of roles, responsibilities and procedures for board and other officials. That was the major point I raised in my mail. And let me state once more, what actually should go without saying, that this is not a personal attack on you or Jimmy or anyone, as I think most highly of you all. Small digression about working hard: since I am asked almost daily, mostly by mail: yes I am working on new wikistats. In a few weeks time, when I announce new stats, I'll explain why it took so long to update the scripts to mediawiki 1.5 Erik Zachte