[Foundation-l] Policy modification (was possible reconsideration)

[Mark Williamson]

You paint it as a question of one or the other. Either you listen to
the concerns of people, OR you "do what you aim to do", as if it is
impossible to do both.

This is a bad premise. I would hope that within the organizational
structure of Wikimedia, there would be room for sharing ideas, and for
some degree of controlled democracy. In many ways, the LC is doing a
great job.

That does not mean that the LC should be completely closed to outside
input. There should always be room for discussion and serious
reconsideration of policies, and as of yet I think most people on this
list would agree with the assessment that you do not appear to have
listened to a thing anybody had to say about the policy, instead
defending it without stopping to consider it on its merits. Of course,
it is fine if you support the existing policy, but such a position of
supporting the status quo should be reasoned and well thought-out,
something that a couple of people have provided already with their
positions here in support of the status quo, but that you have not
with your circular reasoning and continued unwillingness to lend your
ear to the concerns of mere non-LC civilians.

Mark

2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what
> we aim to do?
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
>> you
>> > are now in the race to win votes.  That makes you a politician and you
>> have
>> > to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
>> you
>> > enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
>> >
>> > When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
>> to
>> > do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The
>> > language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to
>> > create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing
>> > languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
>> the
>> > language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
>> chance
>> > for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated.
>> > This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
>> point
>> > of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a
>> > consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
>> taken
>> > in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
>> and
>> > it is for them to live with the consequences.
>> >
>> > It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
>> on
>> > the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
>> When
>> > the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
>> time
>> > because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
>> the
>> > amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being
>> > part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
>> >
>> > Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
>> to
>> > do.
>> >
>> > NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been
>> > approved by the board have been created.
>> >
>> > Thanks Tim !!
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >      GerardM
>> >
>>
>> Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
>> apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in
>> the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation
>> and committee and communities and projects and individual
>> contributor relations.
>>
>> No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees
>> is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated
>> as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This
>> confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>