[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

Tomasz Ganicz polimerek at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 17:13:46 UTC 2009

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com>:
> 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?

I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still remain
almost 100% transparent and non-hierachical in a sense that everyone
can edit and admins have rather organising and cleanig tools but they
have no special power to decide the shape of content. But this is not
necesarily about Wikimedia Foundation itself which is real life
organization and has to cope with financial and legal issues. I think
it is obvious that legal threats, most of financial decissions and
most of technical issues has to be maintained by hired professional
and maiking such decision by open discussions voting could lead to a
disaster. However, indeed there is a tendency in Foundation to move
many decission to "secret bodies" without any good reason. Among
others, IMHO the big mistake was to move decisions of closing and
opening projects (except it is forced by legal problems) to language
committee, which was theoretically created as an advisory body only
and making all process secret.

Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz

More information about the foundation-l mailing list