Dear Dariusz
I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel that they may be able to as individuals. I note that you feel that it is possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to make some improvements (and, we presume, may not). So you propose to park the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of urgency or commitment.
This attitude makes perfect sense if you see engagement with individuals as a drain on your resources, a communications overhead which can only distract and detract from the other more important things that you need to be doing, whatever those may be. It makes sense if the Board regards itself as lacking in all other resources, human and financial, to invest in making an engagement productive. It makes sense if the Board regards the community as a lumpenproletariat of contributors fit only for routine work but devoid of all strategic capacity, understanding and insight.
I think this is completely mistaken. The community has far more resources, far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into it. Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive attitude to the future direction of the mission.
The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at risk. What a shame.
Yours "Rogol"
hi Rogol,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel that they may be able to as individuals. I note that you feel that it is possible that returning to this issue next year the Board may be able to make some improvements (and, we presume, may not). So you propose to park the issue and maybe do something in the future, but without any sort of urgency or commitment.
I think there may be a bit of good will misunderstanding. I strongly believe that the Board members should engage directly with individual members of the community. I have only acknowledged the fact that our current technologies are highly imperfect for that.
I think this is completely mistaken. The community has far more resources, far better ideas, and far more experience than the Board on its own can possibly hope to have – if only the Board were willing and able to tap into it. Constructive engagement would not only pay for itself purely in terms of avoiding the conflicts which have drained everyone's time and energy in the past, but also enable the Board to take a more far-sighted and positive attitude to the future direction of the mission.
This is absolutely a very good point. I definitely believe that the community has the skills, experience, and ability to help (or heavy-lift on its own) a number of tech solutions. However, if better communication tools are not developed from within the community, we still should make them, that's the point.
The Board's failure to engage effectively with the community until now, and lack of interest in doing so in the future, is putting the mission at risk. What a shame.
Again, I have not expressed such a lack of interest, and I don't think other members did.
best,
dariusz
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org