> > You may have missed a couple of things. A good portion of the loudest > critics of _the_ _process_ (not the result) ; I hesitate say the majority, > because I haven't done the numbers; were in fact people in favor of > the proposal itself, but who had the integrity to recognize that a > result gained by such flawed means has little or no legitimacy. >
Indeed; it was not a wonderfully useful polling of opinion. Count me in that group. > Thirdly, there never has in the past been *any* hierarchy in > wikimedia, that is the beauty of it. And any attempt at empire > building, now, or in the future, is doomed to fail. There is a > governance structure, but that should be ring-fenced away > from the community. What we have here is the governance > structure trying to leap over the fence. We simply can't have > that. > We have mini-empires at just about every level of the foundation and communities - at least on en.wiki. Those empires are pretty well entrenched by now that any differing view barely gets a look in. > What is needed here is not a prostrate leadership, but one > which acknowledges what happened, and offers a crisp > plain apology. That wouldn't repair the damage, but it sure > would staunch the bleeding. If only... as I recently commented at the London Wikimeet; for an organisation that is ostensibly at the bleeding edge of disseminating knowledge and openness we have a disappointingly standard/closed higher organisation. You can hardly tell it apart from the bazillions of other NFP's.... So: I wouldn't hold out hope. Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
