In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnelson@gmail.com writes:
Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the money donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered away on frivolous requirements. If the foundation does a bad job of that, it will be replaced by some party which CAN do a good job of being responsible to donors. >>
So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors?
Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing lists, as are you.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnelson@gmail.com writes:
Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the money donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered away on frivolous requirements. If the foundation does a bad job of that, it will be replaced by some party which CAN do a good job of being responsible to donors. >>
So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Russell Nelson russnelson@gmail.com wrote:
Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing lists, as are you.
So clearly everyone contributing to this discussion has also contributed to the foundation!
In any case, both you and Dumas quoted me out of context.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors?
I prefer contributers or simply the community. Donors, editors, admins, volunteers whatever name you want to call them are all part of that. Some people can't give monetarily (or don't want to) some can't (or don't want to) give with their time. They are all part of the community that drives the projects forward.
On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:39 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors?
I prefer contributers or simply the community. Donors, editors, admins, volunteers whatever name you want to call them are all part of that. Some people can't give monetarily (or don't want to) some can't (or don't want to) give with their time. They are all part of the community that drives the projects forward.
I'm going to do something I rarely do: try to speak for others.
At the Foundation offices, I think it is safe to say that every one of us feels a deep sense of accountability to the mission, to our coworkers, and to contributors of all types: financial, knowledge, editor, administrator, developer, and to our readers.
I have never worked with a more focused and intensely mission driven group.
I say this as the person running the contribution campaign, and as a long term editor.
To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context? Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but donors is to make a careless generalization, and one that borders on trolling.
The people who make up the staff and the volunteers of our projects are driven and give tremendously of their time. I defy anyone to find me a single one of them who only feels accountable to donors. You can't. I guarantee it.
Philippe
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context? Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but donors is to make a careless generalization, and one that borders on trolling.
This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part of the problem with nearly every thread like this.
Is there some sort of unspoken rule that all foundation-l moderators must be absentee landlords?
MZMcBride
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part of the problem with nearly every thread like this.
Is there some sort of unspoken rule that all foundation-l moderators must be absentee landlords?
Isn't that the wiki way?
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part of the problem with nearly every thread like this.
Is there some sort of unspoken rule that all foundation-l moderators must be absentee landlords?
Isn't that the wiki way?
Perhaps, but this is a mailing list, not a wiki.
MZMcBride
I can guarantee that I myself, one of the three foundation-l list moderators, am not an absent landlord. I read every post with care and attention. Whilst there have been some posts on various threads of late than have been to my mind sub-optimal, there have not, in my opinion, been any egrarious personal attacks or trolling.
Moderation is not something we take lightly. Indeed, when we recently reluctantly took the decision to ban one member, there were cries of censorship.
That said, if you feel that there are any posts which overstepped the mark, please let me or one of the more experienced list moderators know privately.
AD User:AlexandrDmitri on all Wikimedia Projects
2010/11/30 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any
actual
moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large
part
of the problem with nearly every thread like this.
Is there some sort of unspoken rule that all foundation-l moderators
must be
absentee landlords?
Isn't that the wiki way?
Perhaps, but this is a mailing list, not a wiki.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov wrote:
I can guarantee that I myself, one of the three foundation-l list moderators, am not an absent landlord. I read every post with care and attention. Whilst there have been some posts on various threads of late than have been to my mind sub-optimal, there have not, in my opinion, been any egrarious personal attacks or trolling.
Moderation is not something we take lightly. Indeed, when we recently reluctantly took the decision to ban one member, there were cries of censorship.
That said, if you feel that there are any posts which overstepped the mark, please let me or one of the more experienced list moderators know privately.
It's not really about technical moderation. The answer is usually not to set the moderation filter in mailman. (And, yes, I'll agree that the few times software moderation has been used on this list, it's been done poorly.) It's also not really about reading every post, though as a moderator, at least skimming them is always a good idea.
The answer is usually for a moderator to try to steer the thread in the right direction. They may not always be successful, but it's worth a shot (or two) in any case. It's difficult to explain, but if you've ever been on a forum or mailing list with a good moderator, I think you'll know what I'm talking about.
MZMcBride
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org