[Foundation-l] Re: Resignation as CRO

[Anthere]

Erik Zachte wrote:
> 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.

Sorry to see you interpretated my words like this. I sure do not 
consider you as an outsider. I do not see where I said that.
My current main problem is that I try to see why some people say 
communication is failing, and to see how we can help fix that.
I am only touchy because I think this is an area where I tried to put a 
lot of work in, and answer to my question "* exactly on which topic do 
you feel you are not informed ? " with an answer such as Dan 
"Everything" is definitly HARD to swallow.

To take a developer comparison, it is just as if you wrote code for a 
full year and some one tell you absolutely 100% is to put in the bin.

Hard not to be touchy when reading that. So, sorry if I am a bit short.


> 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.

Very good point.

I try to give you my memories (on which Jimbo and Angela might not agree).

Mav was immediately appointed finance officer, because he wanted to take 
care of that, is very trusted by the community and it was a good part of 
his election agenda last year. I do not think we really made a "role" 
description. He is taking care of budget, trying (with difficulty not 
due to him) to follow expenses and taking care of fundraising. It is so 
because he is willing.

Tim was made developer liaison... mostly because defacto he held that 
role. He resigned at some point because he felt wikipedia was eating his 
real life and needed to back up.

No real role has frankly been defined for Brion and Dammit. I guess it 
just seemed natural to us, because they are both appreciated, non 
controversial, good at their job and nice guys (though Brion does not 
like kisses). I think their role should probably be more strictly 
defined in the sense of them possibly having to communicate more; but 
this is a personal feeling. I do not think I am informed enough in 
computer issues to be able to judge myself how they could do things or 
not better. Other developers or Jimbo (and you) could probably better 
say. Neither of both ask for this position and neither wrote any 
description of their role.

Erik wrote his role description and sent it to the board to comment.
I agree he did not really submitted that to the community review, and I 
cant remember at which point it was exactly posted on meta (before or 
after nomination ? I really do not remember).

Danny. Well, Danny's nomination has been pending all through last year. 
I do not really know why. He being appointed was kinda obvious, since 
grant making is part of his real life job and he is one of the most 
interested by the topic. Would I have to cite another name, I would not 
know which other, and Danny seems just the perfect role for the 
coordinator. The last meeting with the chapters just show that exactly. 
He is a good mixture of professionalism, friendliness, openness. Well. 
Anyway, no role was frankly written, because in the whole past year, we 
had no reason to say anything with regards to what he was already doing 
:-) (though, admittedly, I complained a couple of time that he was 
informing only Jimbo rather than the board, but well, no biggie). Should 
the role be better defined ? Possibly.

Legal. Well, this role is still very much under work. There was no real 
legal department, and it is obvious we  need to develop this part for 
many reasons that I myself explained here (when we created the 
juriwiki-l). This was all explained on meta. I guess Soufron's role is 
none of "commanding" others, but more one of animation. I wish he be 
more assertive in starting discussions and policies creation with 
regards to logo use, trademarks and such, but at the same time, I see 
all the time he is already giving to wikimedia, and I feel it is 
justifiable he can't be everywhere himself :-)  Role description ? Well, 
  yes, I guess I basically outlined it, but I was not very precise 
because I wish things to evolve in a natural direction, without pushing 
it in a specific way. So the role is quite fluttery.

Elian and press. This role was proposed by Jimbo, after discussion with 
Elian (so I can guess, the role description was very much due to Elian). 
It results from the observation of a fact : Jimbo having sometimes 
troubles to handle all the press requests :-) Elian role was fully in 
light during Wikimania, where she organised the press conference, 
educated board members for their bad answers (me :-)), managed Jimbo's 
agenda during 4 days etc... Additionnaly, she is trying to centralize, 
organise and make more consistent press releases, press team and our 
answers. Again, this came mostly from seeing a lack... and a wikipedian 
offering an answer to us to help with this lack. A proactive approach.

Election officials. I asked on this very mailing list for candidates. 
Candidates were free to candidate. They organised the elections and 
translations pretty much the way they felt was the best. I think it was 
very well organised. Probably better than what it would have been if we 
had told them what to do.

Last, there is a discussion for a role of chapter coordinator. This 
comes from an arising need, mentionned by a wikipedian. The role was 
discussed at wikimania amongst board and chapter. It is currently 
visible on meta; it was drafted by Delphine, with comments from I and 
small modification from Angela. Delphine drafted it upon my request 
after Wikimania and it is posted for open comment. It has not been yet 
approved, pending board and chapter discussion.


> 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."

Yes.
Last time we discussed it was I think in may, mostly per private mail 
and several other people (amongst which Elian, Delphine and Akl). At the 
end of the discussion, we agreed that JImbo will set a short and general 
draft (something like 15 lines) and post that for open discussion and 
creation of the concept.
As of today, no draft has yet been posted. But I think what Jimbo is 
referring to is that draft, to be hacked by you guys.


> 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?

I think you make a small mistake. No board meetings are less open than 
the first ones. The truth is mostly "less board meeting" because it has 
been VERY difficult to "have" board meeting in the past months. Motive : 
Jimbo was very often travelling. Second motive : I need to sleep more 
than before, so can't agree any more to very late meetings. For 3 months 
this winter and three months this spring, I fell asleep every evening 
around 8h30. Between Jimbo and I, meetings were hard to organise so most 
discussions occurred by mail, or two by two on irc. We also increased 
the number of semi-privte small groups on irc, due to an increasing 
number of painful individuals on irc (note that developers did the 
same). We also reduced discussions on foundation-l due to many trolling 
topics. Unfortunate, but real.

This said, yes, many of the last meetings dealt with sensitive issues on 
top.


The meeting tonight could possibly gather board + officers + three or 
four chapters members.

I guess we could have the next one open to everyone.


> 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.

Is this enough to answer your questions or are they points left out you 
would like to clarify ?

> 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.

Thanks for saying this

> 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



neat :-)
I was sorry I could not go to your presentations at Wikimania. 4 rooms 
in parallele made that all not so easy.

Ant