[Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

[Erik Zachte]

Anthere:
> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
.....
> Well, this is also one of our problems. We are also struggling with more
> pressing issues. We would also benefit of help, because we also lack
> wo-man power. And as you mention, taking care of communication could
> also be a full-time job and aside from Jimbo, both Angela and I also
> have one of those.

First noone said the board is not working hard.
I think we all know that and appreciate it.

> Are you yourself ready to help distribute the information ?
> How many times did you yourself copied an information mentionned on that
list on your own village pump ?
> How many times did you help translate the foundation website or the Quarto
?
> How many times did you yourself provide us information that might be
useful ?

Please do not say that others can not comment unless they spent more time on
the issue,
they spent lots of time on other issues and still have an opinion about
this.

One of the virtues of a democracy is that everyone can participate in a
discussion
even when they are outsiders (or seen as such by the insiders), even when
they are (perceived as) unreasonable or one-sided.
I try to give reasonable, balanced comments and suggestions, so please do
not tell me I am de facto an outsider on this issue.

This whole discussion is not about blaming anyone.
It discusses where improvements could be made.

> Eactly on which topic do you feel you are not informed ?
> Please cite some examples of issues where we have been failing ?

Since you asked what could be more transparent, three examples:

To keep close to the subject at hand: the way that new officers were
appointed is a prime example,
It came out of the blue. No discussion about definition of roles. I got very
much the impression that officers were to define their own role.
When Erik Moeller stated how he wanted to act, I did not see much response
from the board or anyone else.
Of course the whole community could have started to debate the new roles
after people were appointed,
that hardly happened either. It is a bit more difficult when people have
been appointed already.

Secondly I already mentioned the current discussion about reforming the
decision making process, which is taking place.
Jimbo hinted to it when I met him in Amsterdam months ago and voiced similar
concerns as I did now.
I asked if Wikimania would be a good place to discuss this more openly and
he agreed,
but his answer on a question by Tim Starling was something close to "We are
working on reform and you'll hear more in a few months time."

Lastly in the beginning most board meetings were open, either for anyone to
comment online, or to read the full proceedings later.
Now most board meetings and even some wikis are closed and at best we get to
hear the actual decision and a very concise rationale.
I can understand that some issues deal with outside partners or specific
persons in our community and are sensitive.
Also meeting with 50 people talking at the same time on IRC is not
productive.
Why not publish most discussions verbatim with bits taken away that are
sensitive and a short explanation of what has been left out.
Is it that most meetings now deal with sensitive issues, and did not in the
past?

Anthere, you did not yet comment on a the lack of clear definition of roles,
responsibilities and procedures for board and other officials.
That was the major point I raised in my mail.

And let me state once more, what actually should go without saying,
that this is not a personal attack on you or Jimmy or anyone, as I think
most highly of you all.

Small digression about working hard: since I am asked almost daily, mostly
by mail: yes I am working on new wikistats.
In a few weeks time, when I announce new stats, I'll explain why it took so
long to update the scripts to mediawiki 1.5

Erik Zachte