> I'm going to go against the grain a little and say I don't think it was a > problem that Victoria shared why she voted the way that she did, even if > the content of the message itself was concerning. Rationales like that > rightly cause distrust because people wonder what else is kept hidden in > the name of "private information" that is more of a shield protecting the > WMF than the actual right thing to do. I was worried the "lesson learned" > here was that the board needs to keep an even tighter rein on trustee's > communications when I think that's part of the problem with the way things > currently are. I would've appreciated other board members saying "there are > other reasons we disqualified these candidates" or "I did not vote the way > I did because of Victoria's rationales". That wouldn't have really been > exposing anything but it might've given people some peace of mind that > maybe there was an actual good reason for why these candidates were > disqualified. >
This is an interesting point. Usually I'm very much in favour of Board members contributing to discussions personally and not simply sharing statements co-written with the communications team. Usually it's better to understand the diversity of opinions on the Board - this is helpful and reassuring for community members - and it's helpful that the Board have in recent years increased their communication with community members. (I touch on this my essay on WMF-Community relationships....: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Why_do_They_always_do_It_wrong ) However here it's more complicated, because it's not *just* about the Board's opinions, it's about the feelings and reputations of the candidates who were excluded. Personally I would love to understand the board's *criteria* in making these decisions, though I can understand their reluctance to share anything more on this at present, since that would start to be interpreted in the light of the candidates excluded. (Also, the tone and manner of how Board members express themselves in public is important... there's a balancing act between carefully crafting statements that end up so woolly they appear meaningless, and on the other hand being so blunt and direct as to upset or anger people) Chris
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/OZ3D2HG7OMBR2Z2F5GGMRO2IHLMTWETF/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
