On 30 September 2014 14:12, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming
such a drama for some
people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury,
which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for
volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.
There is no process published. You may think this is clear, but there
are no records published and no criteria are set. As an example I have
been unable to identify who sits on the "Wikimania Steering Group" nor
find any published minutes for its meetings, despite this being a body
that bears responsibility for hundreds of thousands of dollars of
donated funds. Perhaps you do, and can link us to this information?
Because lets face it, being on the jury is a boring
task and little fun.
Why are you (plural) trying so hard to make it even less fun...
These are indeed assertions, and I agree to focus on responding to factual
questions instead.
The questions in this thread (as raised by Itzik, Beria and myself)
were not answered, they appear to be sidestepped. It is unclear why,
so I put some assertions which you are free to counter with any facts
you are aware of, such as whether at least 5 out of 7 jury members
have been employees of the WMF or chapters.
So again: Thanks for spending all this effort and
time!
No problem. Wikimedia has a shared value of openness and transparency,
I believe it is worth spending a moment to pick up on where our
processes, such as for Wikimania governance, appear to be failing
these values. It may not be the fun you are advocating, but governance
is an important part of what we need to do.
Fae