Perhaps we could stick to facts?

In the very recent case of Arnnon Geshuri, the WMF board of trustees
proved themselves to be completely out of touch with the
community.[1][2] 314 Wikimedians took part in the vote of no
confidence, hardly just "malcontents", and 95% of those that took part
voted directly against the stated position of the board, who still
remain happy with their decision to keep Geshuri as trustee, and have
not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it.

With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
"missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
& Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
including major changes at the board level.

It is an easy and lazy response to shout down objections by deriding
everyone that has a complaint a malcontent or a troll. However after a
few years of the WMF board failing to improve their self-governance or
transparency, it's time to actually change things rather than
accepting soft soap and political position statements that hold nobody
to account.



On 2 May 2016 at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen <> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The most important thing about the board and the WMF is that they enable
> what we do. The dependence on them delivering services that are of a high
> quality is something they deliver. At the same time there is a coterie of
> "Wikipedians" that want to remake the WMF in their own image. They have
> proven not to be interested in our projects really. They have been
> challenged to consider practical things that will deliver much better
> quality for Wikipedia but it proved not to be what they are interested in.
> Arguably there is a crisis. But the crisis has less to do with the WMF than
> with some in the community. They call themselves the community. IMHO they
> are malcontents; they have no agenda but single issues that will not help
> us achieve what the WMF is about.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
> On 1 May 2016 at 23:36, Rogol Domedonfors <> wrote:
>> It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
>> down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
>> Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to