On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired) > > is taking the situation a bit too far. > > At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just > > punishment already. > > > > It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they > > can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and > perhaps > > explain their reasons), which they have done. > > If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part > of > > the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have > > the option to "punish" the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the > > same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this > tit-for-tat > > satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and > > relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would > > lead to any good results. > > > > I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the > > line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only > > defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that > > can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are > > going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing > > the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation > that > > is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1] > > > > I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to > > accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any > > satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's > > wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional > > persons, one mistake does not define them and I am sure the existing > > relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and > > working together. > > > > For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be > helpful > > if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example, > > helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions, > > including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level > and > > venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind > of > > training is provided to WMF employees. > > > > Best regards, > > Bence > > > > > > [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some > > questions (their pre-coded "response") can be lowering the quality of > some > > of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on > > the Q&A format. > Yes. Because ten years ago the community set WMF's agenda. But nowadays WMF staff sets the community's agenda and presents them as a done deal. Hurtful examples from the last year or two are now springing into my mind like a fountain. Deryck > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l