[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[Sfmammamia]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
<jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
>
James,

The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your
original post is that you seem to  conflate "the Foundation" with
"Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about
the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.

People here have given you several examples of the types of
Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think
the point has been well-made that there are certain types of
information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the
Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the
Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters
private and confidential.  I thought you accepted those examples.

How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a
separate matter.  Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an
arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.

Teresa