> > > resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for > childish projects that's > written in a funny language never seen written before in > any respectable scientific book, website, etc.. > > I do not necessarily agree with that. I think the majority of the projects approved are doing fine. My problem is with the closed process that does not lend itself to improvement:
- Members are appointed by the committee itself (self-appointed as Mark says), this doesn't lend itself to diversity or difference in opinion. - The archives are not totally public (some messages are, some messages are not), leaving a patchy history , so we cannot go back and discuss with the committee something we think needs improvement, because we simply will not know how the decision was taken. So I don't know how transparency has increased? if the community has no say in choosing members and does not have access to the deliberation archive, what exactly has become more transparent? -- Best Regards, Muhammad Yahia _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
