I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and
I appreciate their attempts to address this issue.  As a new member of the
Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there
is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is frustrating
when we cannot release the information that shows that those decisions are
clearly justified.  So sometimes we have to say "trust us".  Perhaps this
is the situation here.  Perhaps there is something James did, or perhaps
the clash of personalities was too much.  So they may have to do the same
here and say "trust us"

However, for the community to have that trust, there has to be
accountability and transparency in other areas.  Members of the Arbitration
Committee are known to the community and voted in by them, while most
members of the Board are not accountable to the community in any way.  The
Committee does as much as it can transparently and is as forthcoming as it
can be with public deliberations.  The Board and the Foundation are not
sufficiently transparent about things like the Knowledge Engine, and don't
have a great track record with things like Superprotect.  There are also
concerns that Silicon Valley and the technology sector are over-represented
on the board, while much of what the community and the Foundation
supposedly represent  - the entire world as opposed to the Global North,
the open source community, cultural and knowledge institutions that work
with GLAM, academia - are barely or not represented at all.  So when you
say "trust us", and you haven't addressed those issues, it's difficult to
just accept what vague assurances are provided about this matter.

(speaking for myself only and not the Arbitration Committee)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to