On 04/01/2014 09:34 AM, Fæ wrote:
I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a different light.
That's actually amusingly wrong, though I can see why you'd think that. I've been an "unpaid volunteer outside" for very many years before I've been "within"; and my job at the foundation is only technical and community-facing.
I have *zero* to do with Governance, no stake in that project, and I don't even actually interact with any of the involved departments. I can tell you with absolute certainty that my comments on this thread would have been exactly the same 18 months ago.
The evidence of this case, as summarized in Sue's own published words, shows that there were multiple attempts to raise polite inquiry. These were consistently overlooked or ignored over an extremely long period.
Indeed. That was mostly a failure of oversight -- possibly combined with unjustified optimism. You know what they say: hindsight is 20/20. I still see no reason to believe that - given the same timing - a deliberate question would not have been just as effective as the less optimal way this matter was raised.
It is *much* easier to get the stakeholders to collaborate when they don't have to go on the defensive.
-- Marc