[Foundation-l] WMF and the press

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>  If we must maintain a common voice, the main question left is "who is in
>>>  control of the information distributed", and what will be the channels
>>>  of distribution of the information. In an internet area, the one who has
>>>  control over the information distributed or not distributed, has in
>>>  reality control of the organization. That's basic strategy.
>>>
>>>       
>> It's unclear to me exactly what you're trying to say, but when you put
>> it that way, isn't it obvious that maintaining a common voice is a bad
>> idea?  The leaks to the press, then, are not disastrous, but the only
>> hope for salvation.
>>
>> In any case, the explanation that the press is considered bad because
>> the Foundation seeks to maintain a common voice is a good one.  In a
>> private response someone said to me that the Foundation dislikes the
>> press because the Foundation is doing inappropriate things (my
>> paraphrase).  My response was that even if *some individuals* in the
>> Foundation are doing inappropriate things, it is still in the best
>> interests of the Foundation *as a whole* to reveal those things, so
>> that it is much more likely that similar things don't happen again.
>>     
>
> As far as I can say, no individuals are doing inappropriate things in 
> the Foundation, so there is nothing to reveal.
> The problem is that, in our organization, just as in any organization, 
> there are sometimes some disagreements in the way things are run (eg, 
> Lodewijk this morning). These disagreements are normal. And the 
> appropriate way to help solve these disagreements is by talking through 
> them.
> What is bad is to make too much noise around each disagreement, putting 
> too much importance in them, or inventing arguments, inventing other 
> stories to further fuel the disagreements.
>   

I think this is precisely right. And though I clearly disagree
with the strong feelings Lodewijk expressed, I do agree (as
you appear to agree too), that a lot more communication is
what is needed here. We really do need to know what the
thinking of the various individuals on the board was regarding
the question of the board expansion, restructuring and the
place of other conceivable actors and institutions existing
and potential. For me this is not needed because there is
great reason for worry about the facts and opinions themselves,
but because there is a (for me) great amount of not understanding
it at all. I expect it can be explained, but the fact that it is currently
not explained at all, is in itself a not good thing, even though I trust
when it is explained, there is good reasoning behind it.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro