[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 15:50:36 UTC 2009

James Rigg <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hello James,

Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much
as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to
publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind
if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad
diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as
some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty
good at transparency.

Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees
naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal
for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any
other regardless of access flags.

I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep
telling them they're all equal.

Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

More information about the foundation-l mailing list