On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
how should this be solved?
To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect that their work won't be overruled.
That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)
A first step would be to abide to the principles of Open Process http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/OpenProcess
Namely:
- Transparency - all communications and decisions are public and archived, so anyone interested may get all information - No time constraints - all decisions (democratic or not) are suggested or announced a reasonable timespan before they become effective. So there is still time for discussion and even last minute intervention. - Participation - in principle (this opens the chance for restrictions in case of problems) anyone is welcome to participate (discussions, decisions *and* work) - * Reflection and reversibility - any decision may be reversed if the results are not as expected. * - Tolerance - any system or process should have the flexibility in the application of its - necessary - rules - Sharing and collaborating on visible and accessible goals and resources
Then a second step would be to engage the community, not only as something that has to be "managed", but as an equal partner that has to take up responsibilities and who is able to affect decisions. This of course means a paradigm shift moving away from "community liaisons" and into the realm of helping contributors to constitute themselves enabling them to take up a shared ownership role without the need of a formal organization.
I don't think the wmf is entirely responsible for making this happen, there is also have to be a general will to embody such a spirit without resorting to staff, hierarchies, or votes. The problem is that most of us live in a world that doesn't work this way, and the attached structural flaws are imported, when there is no need to.
Anyhow, that should be something to speak about when the tensions have been defused.
Cheers, Micru