On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling <steven.wall...@gmail.com>

> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel <scannopo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>> cheers,
>> scann
> 100% this.
> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
> less than five."[1]
> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
> people. It's turtles all the way down.
> 1:
> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.

Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
distributed decision-making organs.

Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
Public archives at 
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to