Hi Amanda, [Apologies if accidental double-post] "Moving forward, we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant policies, procedures, and practices."
That would be a reasonable statement if this were a more marginally concerning action - something that promoted some concerns, and pointed to potential greater future issues if not resolved. However this indicates the WMF is willing to accept that an error was made, but not actually vitiate that error. It also concerns me that the WMF were *not* aware of Community & affiliate norms in this field - what level of oversight of affiliate governance is occurring that there being significant affiliates with provisions like this not be known? Like functionally the entire participant list of the email thread to date, I don't think there was any absence of good faith from key actors. But nor do I think it's "merely" (and it's a very big "merely" indeed) an optics complaint. There are genuine accidental COI issues that arise, as well as the instance raising genuine concerns at the decision-making and awareness of community values that anyone operating in such a significant consulting role in the most critical field of discussions the movement has had in a decade. Yours, Nosebagbear _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YZ6SE42G5U7CTBJQY3CQWNTATCU47G3F/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
