[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Michael R. Irwin]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>  
>
>>On 6/3/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see
>>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming
>>>>you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions,
>>>>"failed to gain Board support".  I wonder: Who proposed that
>>>>resolution?  Who voted for it?  Who voted against it?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote
>>>yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
>>>
>>>Angela.
>>>      
>>>
>>It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board
>>members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
>>    
>>
>
>I rest my case.  Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
>
>There is a legitimate question as to what to call a resolution which was
>never voted upon, because no one ever made a motion that it be voted on,
>because it was in preliminary drafting stages.  Was it rejected?  Was it
>never really proposed?  That is what Angela is talking about.
>
>Spinning this into some kind of lack of transparency is just... well, it
>is Anthony.  Nonsense.
>
>--Jimbo
>  
>
Jimbo, only percieved trolls with little standing to lose with the 
powers that be within our "communities" are going to tell the Emperor he 
has no clothes.

I have wasted more time than I care to remember wandering around meta 
and various mailing lists looking for agendas, results of votes, 
minutes, budgets, audit reports, expenditures, etc.   All the typical 
data that an organization should routinely produce and publish in a 
timely manner to operate efficiently.

Little to none of it is published in an organized meaningful manner for 
the simple fundamental reason that we have a stacked Board and what 
matters is what Jimbo decides.  In organizations where meaningul 
delegation is the rule the data gets produced because everybody needs 
it!  Nobody needs it at the Wikimedia Foundation because only Jimbo's 
opinion or stated position has any final standing on anything.  So it 
does not get routinely produced and posted publicly.

Your committees and people participating in the process are to a large 
extent hand picked from the select group are known to get along with you 
on the mailing lists.

People like me who have had conflicts in the past are not likely to send 
private emails requesting information from insiders who are unlikely to 
provide it as a result of past personal conflicts.

I understand that many initiatives have been attempted in the past and 
are currently underway but it does not change the fact that few 
volunteers want to hang around breathlessly all the time waiting for you 
to make decisions.

When those volunteers get interested in a topic and go looking for the 
information and cannot find it without querying a wide range of poorly 
organized sources the organization does indeed look "opaque".

The best way for you to fix the growing problems of the Wikimedia 
Foundation is to unstack the Board.   Hold an immediate election for the 
two appointed trustee positions.   Hang onto your personal position by 
fiat if you cannot trust the community to vote you onto the Board.  Four 
to one looks a lot more honest than three to two but (paraphrasing to 
make my point)  ..... "I will almost always not oppose the two electees 
... honest."

When your "Interim Director" tells you the same thing or something 
similar, remember you heard it first, or at least before, from a "troll".

regards,
mirwin, lazyquasar