[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

James Rigg jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com
Sat Jan 10 15:22:16 UTC 2009

That sounds a bit like a politician not wanting to admit that they've
abandoned a policy or goal! ;)

It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
been abandoned.


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
> <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com>wrote:
>> Thanks geni.
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>> Best
>> James
> Not so much that--as a great many things are done openly.
> I think it's more a general agreement that some things, by
> their very nature, can't be done openly.
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list