[Foundation-l] Why is it...

[Christophe Henner]

On 26/04/07, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/4/26, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com>:
> > ... that every time community input is asked on a subject by a board
> > member, little to none is given?
> >
> > And why is it that every time the same things that were put up for
> > discussion are said "approved' or "official" suddenly everyone finds
> > something to say?
> >
> > Shouldn't it be the other around?
> >
>
> IMHO the problem is that in many cases the current process of decision
> making is not transparent. Therefore the general community knows about
> the decision after it is made and start to directly affect them.
> Moreover, in many cases the reasons of decisions are not well
> explained or even not explained at all.
>
> There should be clear system of discussion of Board with community. For example:
> 1. The Board or a given Wikimedia committee officially announce "Let's
> start discussion about a given topic, this discussion is important,
> because The Board or Committee is about to make crucial decision -
> discussion will end at: give a date".
> 2. The discussion is on
> 3. The Board summarizes the main conclusions of discussion putting it
> on meta page.
> 4. The Board announce officially the decision with detailed
> explanation of reasons on Foundation wiki and also broadcast it to all
> whom this decision affects.
> 5. If the "wild" discussion is still going on - it is simply ignored.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
> http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

As far as I know it's almost like that, except for the ending date.
Usually a board member announce the start of a discussion, then
discussion is held, a decision is taken, and then the final decision
is announced.

Actually, few go to discuss it and a lot (note it's always the same
persons who are moaning :) ) moans ...


So the question is what's missing? Communication? What do you need
more than the mails ? Implication ? How could the volounteers be more
involved than actually?

Personnaly I don't thing anything missing in the
communication/implication about the decisions of the board (lack of
communications on other grounds but this is not the place to discuss
it :) ). so nothing is missing perhaps there's too much of "something"
:)

-- 
schiste