I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that the process of making such statements should include consulting the community.
But some have claimed that Katherine's free speech right entitles her to opine on the WMF's behalf without restriction, and multiple others have recently asked the WMF to get involved in other political or advocacy work that is outside the scope of the WMF mission. I object to these on the principle that the WMF is not a vehicle for the general political beliefs of its employees, management, readers or even volunteers. It has committed itself to a mission, and its activities and voice should maintain focus on that mission without allowing itself to be distracted by the worlds many other problems. Its surely easy for those who find nearly complete political and cultural accord with WMF staffers to be comfortable with their political statements on behalf of the movement. But the WMF should take care not to court a backlash from outside the bubble by embracing such activity beyond the reasonable confines of its raison d'etre. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>