Hi Phoebe, Thanks for the swift reply. Please note that the proposal sent to AffCom by the staff was /not/ the same proposal considered by the board. The arguments presented with it, were not even close to the ones presented now - it is unrealistic to expect AffCom to be able to provide any helpful input to that. Also, please note this has been communicated to the board before, and that you still chose to paint this unfair and unjust image. Disappointing again.
But even /if/ affcom would have been consulted properly (which it wasn't), then still you didn't consult the other stakeholders: affiliates, candidate affiliates and the community at large. Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that. However, dwindling in the past processes is only of limited use. What I hope for is that the board members will finally commit to actually ask input to all stakeholders before taking major decisions like this, and not just the staff (and the committee if you really had that illusion). Best, Lodewijk (I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) 2014-02-11 19:27 GMT+01:00 phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com>: > Per Fae, a short response in bullet points: > > * I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously. > * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had > gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to > change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff > member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take > up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board. > > -- phoebe > > * speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree. > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to > > have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established > > members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff > > seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton > > wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect. > > > > It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email > > identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not > > mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents. > > > > Fae > > > > On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with > > them > > > on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) > > and > > > because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because > the > > > board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving > the > > > stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come > > with a > > > more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but > > after > > > this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the > > Affiliation > > > Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the > > > suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but > > > related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from > > > those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board > is > > > painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took > > place. > > > > > > I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting > with > > > the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate > > > affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy > > changing > > > decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of > course > > > not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all > without > > > proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive > > > towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and > > the > > > board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes > > > without allowing stakeholders to influence those. > > > > > > I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again > > after > > > a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation > will > > > not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw > > > changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. > > > > > > Lodewijk Gelauff > > > (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email > > entirely > > > in a personal capacity) > > > > -- > > fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm > > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> > gmail.com * > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
