Per Fae, a short response in bullet points: * I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously. * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board.
-- phoebe * speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to > have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established > members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff > seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton > wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect. > > It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email > identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not > mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents. > > Fae > > On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with > them > > on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) > and > > because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the > > board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the > > stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come > with a > > more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but > after > > this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the > Affiliation > > Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the > > suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but > > related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from > > those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is > > painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took > place. > > > > I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with > > the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate > > affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy > changing > > decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course > > not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without > > proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive > > towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and > the > > board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes > > without allowing stakeholders to influence those. > > > > I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again > after > > a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will > > not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw > > changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. > > > > Lodewijk Gelauff > > (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email > entirely > > in a personal capacity) > > -- > [email protected] http://j.mp/faewm > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
