Erik Zachte wrote:
Anthere:
Now that several people have expressed their
feeling we are non
transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
situation, and make suggestions to improve.
.....
Well, this is also one of our problems. We are
also struggling with more
pressing issues. We would also benefit of help, because we also lack
wo-man power. And as you mention, taking care of communication could
also be a full-time job and aside from Jimbo, both Angela and I also
have one of those.
First noone said the board is not working hard.
I think we all know that and appreciate it.
Are you yourself ready to help distribute the
information ?
How many times did you yourself copied an information mentionned on that
list on your own village pump ?
How many times did you help translate the
foundation website or the Quarto
?
How many times did you yourself provide us
information that might be
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.
Sorry to see you interpretated my words like this. I sure do not
consider you as an outsider. I do not see where I said that.
My current main problem is that I try to see why some people say
communication is failing, and to see how we can help fix that.
I am only touchy because I think this is an area where I tried to put a
lot of work in, and answer to my question "* exactly on which topic do
you feel you are not informed ? " with an answer such as Dan
"Everything" is definitly HARD to swallow.
To take a developer comparison, it is just as if you wrote code for a
full year and some one tell you absolutely 100% is to put in the bin.
Hard not to be touchy when reading that. So, sorry if I am a bit short.
This whole discussion is not about blaming anyone.
It discusses where improvements could be made.
Eactly on which topic do you feel you are not
informed ?
Please cite some examples of issues where we have been failing ?
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.
Very good point.
I try to give you my memories (on which Jimbo and Angela might not agree).
Mav was immediately appointed finance officer, because he wanted to take
care of that, is very trusted by the community and it was a good part of
his election agenda last year. I do not think we really made a "role"
description. He is taking care of budget, trying (with difficulty not
due to him) to follow expenses and taking care of fundraising. It is so
because he is willing.
Tim was made developer liaison... mostly because defacto he held that
role. He resigned at some point because he felt wikipedia was eating his
real life and needed to back up.
No real role has frankly been defined for Brion and Dammit. I guess it
just seemed natural to us, because they are both appreciated, non
controversial, good at their job and nice guys (though Brion does not
like kisses). I think their role should probably be more strictly
defined in the sense of them possibly having to communicate more; but
this is a personal feeling. I do not think I am informed enough in
computer issues to be able to judge myself how they could do things or
not better. Other developers or Jimbo (and you) could probably better
say. Neither of both ask for this position and neither wrote any
description of their role.
Erik wrote his role description and sent it to the board to comment.
I agree he did not really submitted that to the community review, and I
cant remember at which point it was exactly posted on meta (before or
after nomination ? I really do not remember).
Danny. Well, Danny's nomination has been pending all through last year.
I do not really know why. He being appointed was kinda obvious, since
grant making is part of his real life job and he is one of the most
interested by the topic. Would I have to cite another name, I would not
know which other, and Danny seems just the perfect role for the
coordinator. The last meeting with the chapters just show that exactly.
He is a good mixture of professionalism, friendliness, openness. Well.
Anyway, no role was frankly written, because in the whole past year, we
had no reason to say anything with regards to what he was already doing
:-) (though, admittedly, I complained a couple of time that he was
informing only Jimbo rather than the board, but well, no biggie). Should
the role be better defined ? Possibly.
Legal. Well, this role is still very much under work. There was no real
legal department, and it is obvious we need to develop this part for
many reasons that I myself explained here (when we created the
juriwiki-l). This was all explained on meta. I guess Soufron's role is
none of "commanding" others, but more one of animation. I wish he be
more assertive in starting discussions and policies creation with
regards to logo use, trademarks and such, but at the same time, I see
all the time he is already giving to wikimedia, and I feel it is
justifiable he can't be everywhere himself :-) Role description ? Well,
yes, I guess I basically outlined it, but I was not very precise
because I wish things to evolve in a natural direction, without pushing
it in a specific way. So the role is quite fluttery.
Elian and press. This role was proposed by Jimbo, after discussion with
Elian (so I can guess, the role description was very much due to Elian).
It results from the observation of a fact : Jimbo having sometimes
troubles to handle all the press requests :-) Elian role was fully in
light during Wikimania, where she organised the press conference,
educated board members for their bad answers (me :-)), managed Jimbo's
agenda during 4 days etc... Additionnaly, she is trying to centralize,
organise and make more consistent press releases, press team and our
answers. Again, this came mostly from seeing a lack... and a wikipedian
offering an answer to us to help with this lack. A proactive approach.
Election officials. I asked on this very mailing list for candidates.
Candidates were free to candidate. They organised the elections and
translations pretty much the way they felt was the best. I think it was
very well organised. Probably better than what it would have been if we
had told them what to do.
Last, there is a discussion for a role of chapter coordinator. This
comes from an arising need, mentionned by a wikipedian. The role was
discussed at wikimania amongst board and chapter. It is currently
visible on meta; it was drafted by Delphine, with comments from I and
small modification from Angela. Delphine drafted it upon my request
after Wikimania and it is posted for open comment. It has not been yet
approved, pending board and chapter discussion.
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."
Yes.
Last time we discussed it was I think in may, mostly per private mail
and several other people (amongst which Elian, Delphine and Akl). At the
end of the discussion, we agreed that JImbo will set a short and general
draft (something like 15 lines) and post that for open discussion and
creation of the concept.
As of today, no draft has yet been posted. But I think what Jimbo is
referring to is that draft, to be hacked by you guys.
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?
I think you make a small mistake. No board meetings are less open than
the first ones. The truth is mostly "less board meeting" because it has
been VERY difficult to "have" board meeting in the past months. Motive :
Jimbo was very often travelling. Second motive : I need to sleep more
than before, so can't agree any more to very late meetings. For 3 months
this winter and three months this spring, I fell asleep every evening
around 8h30. Between Jimbo and I, meetings were hard to organise so most
discussions occurred by mail, or two by two on irc. We also increased
the number of semi-privte small groups on irc, due to an increasing
number of painful individuals on irc (note that developers did the
same). We also reduced discussions on foundation-l due to many trolling
topics. Unfortunate, but real.
This said, yes, many of the last meetings dealt with sensitive issues on
top.
The meeting tonight could possibly gather board + officers + three or
four chapters members.
I guess we could have the next one open to everyone.
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.
Is this enough to answer your questions or are they points left out you
would like to clarify ?
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.
Thanks for saying this
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
neat :-)
I was sorry I could not go to your presentations at Wikimania. 4 rooms
in parallele made that all not so easy.
Ant