Hoi,
Congratulations Gerard! You have remained in top position, dominating
this list by making the most posts for the last six months.[1]
Sigh.. thank goodness the community is in absolutely no doubt about
your opinion, thank you so much for investing all your time in
repeating yourself and ensuring that your voice remains number one.
Thank you so much for your personal criticism of any voice that
disagrees with yours.
Thanks,
Fae
Links
1.
https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html
On 10 May 2016 at 14:29, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
And then there are all those people who wonder why you keep harping on the
same subject..
Sigh.. Who is that community in your image?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10 May 2016 at 13:14, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> ...
> > The elimination of the Founder seat, I'm also not so certain there is
> broad
> > agreement. There are doubts though, for sure. And there is also no broad
> > agreement to keep the seat as it is.
>
> It's simple enough to test "broad agreement" by having a public vote
> open for all Wikimedians. Maybe you can kick one off?
>
> > And finally, yes, I do think there are many people who want to 'truly
> > elect' community representatives. But again, I'm uncertain whether that
> is
> > legally possible without turning the structure of the WMF upside down.
> In a
> > foundation, the board has the ultimate authority, so to include a rule
> that
> > delegates that authority to an vaguely defined group of people is...
> > tricky.
>
> Not tricky at all. There are *plenty* of other similar organizations
> that have elections for their trustees to their boards, including
> several Wikimedia chapters/affiliates where their boards have oversite
> of many employees and significant sums of money. There is no need to
> turn improvement of democratic governance of the WMF board into a
> challenging drama that turns the "WMF upside down".
>
> Perhaps we should stop looking for hypothetical excuses to avoid
> changing the way the WMF board governs itself, and start to set
> targets for the WMF board so that board members take an active part in
> leading basic improvement to transparency and accountability in
> public, rather than alluding to confidential political horse-trading
> in back-rooms. The WMF is not a heated political party, or a
> fuddy-duddy old-boys club for people who don't understand simple legal
> words, neither should becoming a trustee be seen as a personal honour
> that means that asking difficult questions or holding a trustee to
> account for their action or inaction is batted away as a personal
> attack.
>
> The WMF board is locked into a infectious mind-set that is overripe
> for modernization and the removal of ego driven politics. It would be
> refreshing to see selfless inspiring board leadership that meets the
> public expectations for free open knowledge in the 21st century.
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae