[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Anthere]

Erik Zachte wrote:
> Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html
> 
> Jimmy, I know you value the community with whole your heart. But I cannot
> follow in your analysis of how things are going: you say the community is
> more and more in control, after all board members and other staff are part
> of the community, so essentially the community is 100% in control. But my
> concern centers around:
> 
> * Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
> discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
> this mailing list. I just question this when major foundation issues are
> concerned. I'm not talking daily affairs, that is what we have
> representatives for, but large decisions that define how Wikimedia is
> organised and how it interacts with the rest of the world. From the initial
> bylaws, to their most recent pending incarnation, from the jurisdiction of
> the board, to the mission of the committees and their leading figures, to
> the appointment and tasks of a non-CEO.


> Jimmy: "And, it should be strongly pointed out: the committee system is a
> *community* system, driven by volunteers, staffed by volunteers (#), and the
> committees and the chapters make up the heart and soul of Wikimedia."
> 
> (#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
> reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
> members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
> members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
> highly valued community members  (I'm not even against any of the committees
> or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
> of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
> monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
> organisation.

I hope you are thinking of applying to the special projects...

> I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
> manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
> consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
> of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
> Also on major issues I'd rather sacrifice speed than quality of decision
> making, again on major issues only, and of course judicial emergencies taken
> aside. Even better I welcomed your idea for a wikicouncil, but as policy
> maker not as advisor, thus approaching the ideal of a Trias Politica, but
> noone seems to warm to that idea.
> 
> * Several board members recently stated their weariness about discussing
> things with the larger community (for quotes eee
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007321.html ),
> although I have to say Anthere still does speak up a lot on this list, so
> maybe I make too much out of her remarks. Everyone is entitled to an
> occasional slip of the tongue.

I think you misinterpretated what I said. It is not a slip of the tongue 
but rather a misinterpretation. I try to look back at the past 2 years 
and in all honesty, I feel I discuss with the community just as before. 
Maybe not the same people, maybe not on the same topics, maybe not on 
the same channels of communication, but I discuss just the same.

For example, 2 years ago, I posted pretty frequently on wikitech. And 
often did not get feedback. Now, I usually directy contact developers on 
irc (it is definitly more efficient). 2 years ago, I often participated 
to the english mailing lists, but I have given up because that list 
traffic is horrible and trolls a bit too present.

My weariness has several origins. But it is not at all from discussing 
with regulars. Quite the opposite.

I'll give you one example of a situation which got me really tired. In 
january, Mav set up a line on the english wikipedia, to call for 
donations (the line's still there). A small group of editors started 
removing that line. Mav put it back. It was removed. I put it back... 
and finally got involved in an edit war over putting or removing the 
link to the donation page. To the point that after three reverts, I was 
told I would get blocked for a breach of three-revert rule...

Meanwhile, a discussion was ongoing on the talk page, with several 
arguments being given for removing the donation link. One of the most 
powerful arguments being "we do not need money".

Welllll. When it is 3 am, when one has spend already several hours in 
the day dealing with Foundation issues and has the budget in mind... and 
get threatened to be banned from the project for trying to keep a 
donation link up... there is a sort of... weariness... badly... creeping.

Note that after yet another stupid argument with the editor who 
threatened to have me blocked, I now refuse to talk to him anymore.
I am happy to discuss with nearly any editor on the projects, but there 
is a limit to bullshit :-)


> * Board expansion is not an issue you say, it just will happen. But there
> has been talk, albeit not by you, of appointing board members instead of
> holding an election. If that would ever happen, how could anyone not see
> that the board would be heading towards splendid isolation?
> 
> * The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
> paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
> management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
> outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
> be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
> tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
> find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.
> 
> All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
> community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
> mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
> people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
> committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
> don'ts is what really matters.


You may be correct.
This said, during the first two years of the project, it was more 
paternalistic that it is now.

Thanks

Ant

> All in all I see the dicussion we now have on this mailing list as a very
> good thing. The debate is somewhat heated at times, with an occasional
> sneering remark, but I'd rather see this debate go on for a while with all
> distraction and confusion that it brings, if it strenghtens fundaments of
> Wikimedia as an organisation.
> 
> Erik Zachte