[Foundation-l] Report from Frankfurt - October 2006

[Anthere]

Yeah.
I second oscar words. Next time, take the time to sleep more Oscar.

As for me, I was till yesterday evening out of my home. 8 days away. No 
internet access but some "spots" in hotels. My return means saying hi to 
family, cleaning up home, filling up fridge and other delicacies of the 
sort :-)

There is something else Oscar does not mention. Yes, we could have 
provided you with the SWOT outcome (it will be done), as well as with 
the brainstorming results of the actions outlined (it will be done as 
well, but for some confidential considerations).

However, several of these actions proposed during the retreat should 
actually be approved by the board. Most of them are pretty clearly 
agreed upon by all board members. But for some propositions, questions 
were raised, not so much for the action itself, but rather on who is the 
lead of it, or what the timeline proposed is.
The final decision on what the board should do is not under the 
authority of the participants, it is under the authority of the board 
itself. It would make no sense to announce you an action the board will 
take care of, if the board actually does not agree in doing it.

Right ?

So, we are listing (we is brad and I) the various actions points 
proposed, according to categories, and I will ask the board to clarify 
if it is a "yup" or a "nope". Except for confidential issues (in 
particular legal considerations), I think most will be transparent.

It would be cool to be given a little bit of trust and time. Please.

Ant


oscar wrote:
> you may not be aware of this, but my report is designed to be the first in a
> series of updates, designed for quick delivery and some comprehensive
> information about the retreat, details will of course follow, but not just
> by me. this takes time, people!!
> 
> whatever may have happened to the "assume good faith": a critical look is
> always appreciated, but i feel like maybe next time i shouldn't sacrifice
> yet another night's sleep again, there seem to be implicit expectations in
> view of the reactions? there are however no solutions "out of a box"; it is
> a step by step process, please bear with it.
> 
> best,
> oscar
> 
> On 10/26/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
> 
>>Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
>>
>>>Does it mean you have produced some sort of document with your
>>>recommendations to the Board? If yes, I think, this document, even if
>>>very long, would be much more interesting to read, than all the above
>>>general, abstract statements wich in fact says nothing...
>>
>>Oscar thank you for what you did, but in my view you did not earn your
>>right
>>to complain yet. I also would have expected a more in depth coverage of
>>such
>>a crucial meeting. To name one thing specifically: what was the outcome of
>>the SWOT analysis? I'm sure you all did not do that hard work without
>>taking
>>notes? You might include the SWOT outcome unedited, that saves time.
>>
>>
>>>I will spare you all the details
>>
>>Who are you sparing here? Might that not be yourself in the first place ;)
>>I'm sure many readers of this list would not mind an extra page or two. If
>>you can't spare the time maybe split up the work after all. It is not our
>>fault that the organiser of this event forgot to rent the Big Brother
>>house
>>for 3*24 hrs multichannel coverage ;)
>>
>>Also I find it rather odd to present a list of priorities, where again as
>>you say you all put so much effort in, in alphabetical order. It does not
>>help to give us a sense of what was going on.
>>
>>In August the board decided they needed a retreat among other things to
>>build better relations. Expensive but hey we need a board to be on good
>>terms which each other. Now this retreat grew into Wikimania 2006 part II,
>>
>>it seems.
>>
>>
>>> so let me here express the often heard plea for a next follow-up
>>
>>meeting:
>>a next step,
>>building on this first one.
>>
>>Several times in past years the topic of a wikicouncil was raised
>>(originally by Jimbo). Ironically it seems to me that we now almost got an
>>impromptu wikicouncil, without difficult discussions about size, roles and
>>representativity. Like with the board itself I fear this 'retreat' might
>>transform into something noone had foretold. Of course wikis are all about
>>being bold, yet I learned how this principle can backfire and I reserve
>>the
>>right to express my doubts.
>>
>>Erik Zachte
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>