[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[James Rigg]

Hi

This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
importance of transparency to any organisation, I did a search of this
list of that term, and was a bit concerned by the following post in
December 2007 by Jimmy Wales, who I understand (from his userpage) is
the founder of Wikipedia:

"The Foundation is the most transparent organization that I know of,
to the point of pathology sometimes.  Ironically, that transparency
breeds in some an expectation so high, that it is assumed that
everything has to be discussed openly.  Someone suggested to me the
other day that internal-l and all private mailing lists should be
closed, and all business conducted openly on the wiki.  This is beyond
nonsense, because it would push the Foundation to *less* transparency,
not *more*."

I found this post particularly surprising because I had earlier read,
and been excited by, the following 'statement of principles' on Mr
Wales' user page:

"Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community."

"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia."

I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?

I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia
was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium
has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the
case.

All best wishes

James