I found Tory's report neutral, informative, exhaustive and professional. Since this issue involves people from all spheres of Wikipedia movement, I feel it is wise that she was chosen to do this to given an objective view. We don't need an Indian to analyze this issue.

I found it to be an eyewitness account, not an analysis. I have raised this point elsewhere multiple times, this is the problem that is responsible for getting us here. Hiring individuals not from the community or the geography, to fix what is wrong with either or both. I used an analogy on the page, about hiring a lawyer from Australia, to fix a problem with farmers in Africa, he would not know about either.

Individual community members leave too. But the community exists. Similarly, employees and consultants may leave. But, WMF will be there and I can see that Barry and others are trying their best to address this issue in their official capacity.

You do know WMF came after Wikipedia? or the current incarnation with consultants and staff, with a focus and offices in developing countries even more recently? But those are other discussions for other places. Let me explain, community members are unpaid volunteers, who can join and leave as they wish, they are not bound by anything. Paid staff and contractors, are usually *paid* to undertake a project, if they leave mid-discussion, that is really not the same thing.

Let's please discuss the issues put forward by the report instead of discussing how the report itself should have been done. The former is more important.

I was. I found it lacking, and the person in-charge of the report, abandoning before the discussion started. Another volunteer editor, goes further to give a better view on how to fix this on the page, than the report.

Regards

Theo