Some recent posts here have provoked what seem to me to be unmerited rebukes from members of WMF staff and board. In one case comments to the effect that a Board member's new job might lead to a conflict of interest led to a rebuke from the Board's chair "I’m really sad to witness the tone of certain emails in this thread ... respect is never optional" (In the interests of disclosure, one of the "certain emails" referred to in this lofty pronouncement, although not identified as such, was probably mine). In another, a posting pointing out an inconsistency between various public statetements on the important question of privacy for project users lead to a rebuke from the WMF Head of Research "I am saddened to see that – instead of asking (legitimate) questions to clarify how data is collected and shared – you are assuming bad faith, publicly undermining people across multiple teams at Wikimedia".

In my view neither of these rebukes were merited, and represent attempts to close down discussion on issues that were being raised and discussed in a legitimate, constructive and orderly manner. Just because opinions are unwelcome to board or staff members does not in itself make them illegitimate, disrepecttful or bad taith. Board and staff members are not in a position of superiority over the volunteers, wih some sort of authorisation to rebuke or reward them. They and we are fellow workers in the mission to deliver human knowledge.

Since however, board and staff members are so concerned about respect and good faith, perhaps they would like demonstrate their commitment by being more willing to extend those courtesies to members of the volunteer communty. A way of doing that would be to assume good faith, actually read comments and respond in a helpful and constructive way. Some staff and board members are exemplary in their engagement with the community. Some, sadly, have been quite the opposite.

"Rogol"