I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that I didn't have enough time to read everything.
Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a little digest about the present conflict. On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:12, Lodewijk <[email protected]> wrote: > (after a bit of thinking, I'll post this to foundation-l after all. As a bit > of context, the whole fundraiser discussion continued on internal-l and a > discussion emerged about disconnect between the board of the WMF and the > chapters, of which the letter would be an example. Based on that discussion, > I wrote the email below. As far as I am aware, it contains no confidential > information, so after consideration, this would be a better place actually) > ---- > I think we should be honest with ourselves here: yes there is disconnect - > but it is not /just/ about the foundation. It is a wider problem than that - > but I agree with Dan that this *is* a typical example. Not because of the > direction of the decision even (which I totally disagree with as it is > explained by Sue, but agree with as it is explained privately by some board > members, like noted before) but how it is taken. > > I could not have imagined the board changing its bylaws without consulting > the community (not asking approval, but consulting) a few years ago. I could > not have imagined these important decisions to be taken without serious > discussions with those involved. And that someone then notes "we could have > discussed it but honestly they wouldn't have changed their mind anyway" (my > interpretation) is the most striking for where we are today. Small groups of > people sitting in their ivory towers taking decisions. Sure they do their > best to come out and talk with people, but it too often fails. > > I have seen it too many times. I know of several chapters too, which are > malfunctioning because they are not able to connect to the editing community > any longer - Wikimedia Nederland has been there too (I hope I'm correct to > speak in the past sense). Listening is hard, involving is even harder. I see > it with the board even stronger - some individuals are still working hard to > engage in conversations, but it is no longer default procedure. Another > striking example is that we had to learn about this discussion from Stu's > blog - and nobody bothered to involve others in that discussion by sending > an email to internal or foundation-l. > > It is happening in chapcoms, it is happening in staff (I cannot count > anymore how often I got into the position that I have to defend what Sue and > several other people in the foundation are doing and the saleries they are > alledgedly getting for that) - we all seem to do an extremely bad job in > communicating /with/ the community - not /to/ the community. I have been > saying this a lot of times during the chapters meeting - but I know there > were no foundation people there unfortunately (another example?) so let me > repeat it just once more: talking to people will not suffice, will not > involve them. We are no priests or teachers that will tell them what to do, > but we can motivate them and cooperate with them and be part of it by > talking with them, involving them in conversations. > > I know it is very hard to actually accomplish it - and I know it is easy to > say that you're trying and will try even harder - but that won't be good > enough. > > Lodewijk > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dan Rosenthal <[email protected]> > Date: 2011/8/11 > Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters > To: "Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription)" > <[email protected]> > > > Well, I think this entire debate over the fundraising letter is a great > example. The board and office seriously miscalculated how strongly the > chapters would feel about such a drastic change. I think, frankly, you still > do. The "us vs. them" tone of these discussions, especially from some of > Erik and Jan Bart's emails, appears to me to be causing people to become > defensive and entrenched in their beliefs. > > The fact that this is all being done last minute when many these issues were > known back as of the 2010 fundraiser* sends the message to me that nobody > adequately expressed to the chapters what frustrations the WMF was facing, > at least not in any sort of way that would have prompted a thoughtful series > of responses like we have seen here. > > Then we see things like Jimmy saying "WMF owns Wikipedia" -- something that > I believe we have always shied away from saying on ComCom due to the various > interpretations of "what does own mean?"; the side dispute with Thomas > blaming his chapter for not living up to certain standards that they may or > may not have been actually obligated to do…. > > I should have probably said "In my view, this is an example of a growing > disconnect…" because I certainly can't speak for others. But I think broadly > looking at this whole debacle, it's hard to see anything BUT a disconnect.** > > > *(such as the inadequacy of the fundraising agreement; as well I vaguely > remember there being several chapters that were not in compliance at some > point and we had discussions about it, but it was so long ago and I don't > have access to any notes at the time I couldn't say for sure) > > *notwithstanding recent alternative proposals and attempts to bridge the > gap, of course. > > -Dan > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
