Thanks Anasuya. I believe you, and I understand your points.
But the facts (some are getting out at proposal talk page) were not told
before, which should have been told much earlier.
Even the WMF's intent is not transparent about this particular project. You
can see many questions being asked there not only from me, but also from
other members. And i believe because of this nature of business many others
And it looks like no matter what volunteers ask, say; irrespective of their
concerns, the decisions are final or have been made. To put it in another
way, the paid employees outweigh volunteers. That's all. Thanks.
On 19 April 2014 09:06, Anasuya Sengupta <asengupta(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
I think I've made clear on the CIS talk page what the process for the CIS
transition was, as best as I am able. Since neither Asaf or I were directly
involved at the start, it is difficult for us to give the community details
we do not know.
The so-called Conflict of Interest issue has been addressed by the Board
here,  making it clear that they do not believe that there is any CoI
If it helps further, I'm happy to quote from my email correspondence with
you in February:
I'd also like to clarify that I am not 'associated' with CIS in any
problematic fashion - I have no CoI and never have had one. I have known
Sunil from when I was 21 years old because we worked in the same rural
development NGO - 'Samuha' - he worked on the tech side of things in
Bangalore, and I was working on livelihood and women's leadership in north
Karnataka. We have naturally continued to know each other because of our
common interests in social justice and tech issues in Bangalore and beyond.
And the grant to CIS was discussed and finalised by Barry before I
joined WMF in July 2012; I had nothing to do with that process and did not
even know it was happening till I came on board. I hope that clarifies the
situation and makes clear why the Board said what it did. I'm happy to
respond to any questions about this or anything else.
Let me just say that simply knowing someone does not constitute 'conflict
of interest' - what is important is to establish that there is no undue
influence by and benefit to the 'conflicted person' (a somewhat amusing
phrase of legalese) by this situation. Since neither is true, please be
assured that there is no CoI whatsoever. I'd also like to point out that
our community loses energy and focus by not recognising perceived or actual
CoI when it exists, while assuming it exists in situations where it does
not. I know it can be confusing, and we've made a start to explore it
together at the Wikimedia conference. Asaf and Stephen led a session there,
which we hope to expand into guidelines for the community soon.
I hope this helps,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM, ansuman <ansumang(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If there is a COI issue, why is she involved now? Why did she visited
India officially to meet CISA2K?
To Anusuaya, you have written in that email sent to me that you were not
involved, I think you need to tell the whole community the same.
You said you were not involved, Asaf said on cisa2k proposal page that he
was not involved back then, then who was involved? You need to disclose
that, and bring some clarity, transparency.
If you guys don't disclose, then how would we believe that everything
happened properly without any bias/COI?
Note:you don't disclose these matters openly, hence we ask!
*Anasuya SenguptaSenior Director of GrantmakingWikimedia Foundation*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>