Erik Zachte wrote:
Michael Snow
As Anthere has alluded to, some of the results still need to be organized, discussed further, and agreements reached. The board retreat did not decide every course of action for the Wikimedia Foundation for all time. Much more will be shared and discussed with various people in various forums as we go forward. But we cannot recreate the entire retreat for everyone who wasn't present, or produce a three-day-long video for you to watch it all unfold.
Michael, you seem to say that I and maybe others are overasking.
Others more than just you, Erik, and I chose not to respond to your message directly because I didn't want to single you out. But I was a little disappointed to see people responding to Oscar's effort in creating his report by commenting that it "says nothing" and in other ways calling it inadequate.
What I did plead for was to share analysis, conclusions, priority lists, in short structured and condensated results, like SWOT and priority lists are meant to be, so that others can be informed and provide feedback before these are turned into decisions.
This is understandable, like Anthere I'm mostly asking for a little more patience, as much in people's tone as in whether they have additional requests or not. Most of the important conclusions were already in Oscar's report. The analysis that went into it, Anthere has now posted the SWOT list, and some of the rest we may be able to put together and share as well. A few specific things, especially dealing with legal concerns, need to be kept confidential.
Also, not everything we discussed was necessarily finalized, even with respect to the small group that was present. Three days was good, but hardly enough to tie up every loose end in such a very loosely structured organization. For example, we worked on drafting a formal vision and mission statement, but still had some wording issues to deal with. I suggested that those be put forward for adoption by the community in a referendum, and I'm looking forward to Board releasing them in their final form.
--Michael Snow
On 10/29/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
For example, we worked on drafting a formal vision and mission statement
Why?
geni wrote:
On 10/29/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
For example, we worked on drafting a formal vision and mission statement
Why?
Because.
On 10/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/29/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
For example, we worked on drafting a formal vision and mission statement
Why?
Because.
The problem is that that is what I'm rather worried the answer would be. We appear to have got on okay without one and I tend to feel that haveing one would risk giving rule lawyers more aminition.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org