On 7 October 2011 12:03, Sydney Poore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am saying that you are questioning the decision of an independent body >> to select a person for membership in the same way that he questioned the WMF >> for selecting a person he did not consider appropriate. In short, he sought >> a non-project sanction for on-project activities/concerns. I do not see a >> difference between that behaviour, and members of this list seeking a >> non-project sanction (i.e., removing someone from a chapter Board of >> Directors) for on-project activities/concerns, particularly when the >> on-project concern was....well, doing exactly what seems to be proposed >> here.I agree that we need to be sensitive in general about how we discuss >> these type of issues on a public mailing list. And in this case since one >> party to the case is an active participate to this mailing list, we need to >> take extra caution that we are not only hearing one side of the story. >> > > That said, I don't think that it is actually a parallel comparison. We > don't want users escalating disputes by calling employers because it can > have loads of negative repercussions for Wikipedia as well as the person who > is reported. But I see no reason that users shouldn't take into > consideration whether they support having someone who has been banned on one > WMF project in a position of trust in a WMF related organization or another > wiki. ArbCom does the same type of thing when it vets users for positions of > trust such as checkuser. People take into account an users past history when > they vote for steward or WMF Board members. So, I don't have a problem with > someone raising a concern about it in this situation. > Sydney, I'd agree with you if the "employer" involved wasn't the WMF. There is much that has not been sorted out between various layers of the intersecting WMF communities; it's commonplace and quite acceptable on some projects to criticize the actions of WMF employees directly (indeed, there's a goodly chunk of it on the English Wikipedia), and there have been fairly regular and public calls for the dismissal or sanctioning of WMF employees. Now, I don't think that's a great working environment, but certainly the widely held overall community view is that WMF employees sort of work on behalf of the community as a whole, and that their actions reflect on the movement/community as a whole. In fact, that is essentially what is being argued for in this case, with the exception that it's a chapter member and not a WMF employee involved. However, that viewpoint was soundly repudiated in this particular arbitration case; ironically, the position being taken by members of this mailing list effectively contradict the ruling that has led to the sanctions that the members of this list have expressed a concern about. That is what I am getting at here. Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
