[Foundation-l] and what if...

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>   
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>     
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I did not mean to suggest we should  collaborate with whatever 
>>> government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and 
>>> think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for 
>>> these different futures.
>>>
>>> Ant
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> To say again what I already noted in another posting but in
>> other words; I really think planning like this should be done
>> at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which
>> any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from.
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>>
>> P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency,
>> but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such
>> lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua
>> non.
>>     
>
>
> It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully 
> understand your point about the trolls).
> There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF.
>
> A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided 
> at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And 
> I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into 
> the decision making at the global level.
> What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now 
> restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you 
> advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is 
> not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing.
>
> I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either 
> issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the 
> local level, without much learning and much global understanding.
>
> But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable.
>
>   

I think you read completely different things into what I
wrote, than the words in plain state; perhaps you read
my text in too much haste.

Planning for crises and contingencies is a totally different
thing than making decisions. Crises and contingencies
require prepared options, which are by their nature not
"decisions made", but only happen in the event, as the
events themselves dictate, with the actors hopefully
applying a sound Observe, Orient, Decide, Act ([[OODA Loop]])
manner of operations.

Your sentence: "What you advocate is that every decision
at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF,
and in private on top." ...is the very opposite of what I
wished to communicate.

Issues of laying out hard and soft options for contingencies
is a very specific and ring-fenced area of operations. It
could not be further from "every decision at the global level".

I would however recommend every local and global actor
to peruse our article on the OODA Loop, and on its creator
John Boyd in general too, for that matter.

But for more general decision making in the foundation,
that is a completely separate matter, which should not be
mixed in with the discussion of how to plan for crises.

It is in fact the case that so far, as wikipedians get more
practise with crises (germany and france seem to have
had more practise than most), the experience itself will
likely improve the general readiness of the foundation
staff and local actors acting in concert when events
unfold on the ground.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen