In general there is always a transparent hierarchy and an untasparent one
self organized following the real leaderships.
Problems happen when the gap between both increases. In this case the real
decisions are made in front of a coffee machine and not in the right places.
The solution is a strong commitment from higher levels and a different
organization (for instance by matrix and not simply functional).
Anyway it is the C level having the power to introduce a revolution like
Il 28/Feb/2016 08:09 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <osama...@hotmail.com> ha
> I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the
> mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for
> fireworks for themselves.
> Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some
> very long-standing problems with the WMF and the tone it sets for the rest
> of the movement. While some might be celebrating now, Lila was not the
> problem. IMHO, the problem is a lot of hidden hierarchies (denied of
> course). Add to that, that the lack of transparency allows the growth of
> hidden agendas.
> Remember this blew when a community selected board member was tossed off
> the board unceremoniously. We find out through this that the community (or
> chapters) have no real voice on the board under the current set up.
> > From: dacu...@gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:52:30 +0100
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> > participation?
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org