Il 09/01/2016 01:08, Thomas Goldammer ha scritto:
2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:
Our board made the decision to give Lila a
second chance in the face of staff mistrust.
Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
I wonder how did this kind of leak weigh in removal.
Anyway it's terribly interesting.
Apart from drama, allegations, mistrust, etc. I think no one can
disagree the whole process is terribly broken.
Before defying any "strategy", any "vision", any [put a cool word here]
we should re-start from the basics of what the Board is supposed to be
but, above all, *how* it is supposed to work.
What I read made me think James' removal was harsh but still fair. But
if so many people are disappointed then there's something wrong with the
Shit happens, leaks happen, mistake happens. It seems current
Foundation-side architecture lies upon the assertion no Board member, no
higher staff will ever break bad. Also, it seems to forget our universe
is run by volunteering. Till now we were so lucky (or at least most of
troubles were internally sanitized).
I belong to the "pure online" class of volunteers and I don't feel so
comfortable with a Board which seems to be turning into a Silicon Valley
management board, denying our nature. Surely WMF financial dimensions
need a professional management but this kind of skill (and stability)
should come from a motivated staff instead of from a de facto co-opted
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org