Maggie Dennis wrote:
>You could be on to something there, Craig. :) I think it's fair to say
>that somebody might change his mind in five years for all kinds of
>reasons - including being asked nicely. This process is obviously geared
>to differ widely from the last. Hopefully it will be a good approach for
>everyone.
>
>In terms of the nature of the conversation, it is about the future of the
>movement. There's already quite a lot of feedback on the talk page from
>people who seem happy to discuss exactly that. If you want to join in
>specifically to share your thoughts on the future of the Wikimedia
>Foundation, MZ, that would be welcome, too.
Why would I get involved in a process with somebody who can't keep his
word? It would lend legitimacy to the process and allow Philippe and
others to manipulate the involvement into a bold claim of community
consultation ("X users posted to the talk page, see!").
I try to learn from past mistakes. I was fairly involved in the last
strategic planning process and largely due to that experience I don't
trust Philippe to be involved again. My two questions remain unanswered.
If you want to pretend as though he's being coerced, that's your business,
though I personally find this view pretty disrespectful. Are you seriously
suggesting that if Philippe said "no, I'd rather not be involved this
time" that he would be forced? What would that say about his boss?
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
