On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done > collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money. > This is not one of them.
Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on rebranding. > I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on. This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the damage. >but I've had enough of poor coordination, Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any one person to keep track of. >questionable financial decisions, Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk of paralysis. -- geni _______________________________________________ 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>