Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired) is taking the situation a bit too far. At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just punishment already.
It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and perhaps explain their reasons), which they have done. If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part of the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have the option to "punish" the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this tit-for-tat satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would lead to any good results. I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation that is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1] I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional persons, one mistake does not defy them and I am sure the existing relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and working together. For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be helpful if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example, helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions, including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level and venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind of training is provided to WMF employees. Best regards, Bence [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some questions (their pre-coded "response") can be lowering the quality of some of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on the Q&A format. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
