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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 May 2016 at 08:19, Lodewijk lodewijk@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@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae