Community petition - Meta-Wiki

Community petition - Meta-Wiki
Jump to content
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
en
es
fr
it
Petition to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees:
We, volunteers, ask the Board to give the volunteer community a fair voice in Foundation governance. During its most recent meeting, the Board of Trustees not only rejected a proposal to improve community input in Foundation matters, but implemented an unexpected restructuring to reduce the community seats on the board. The community was not consulted about this reduction in representation and the board provided no explanation for this change.
[1]
That is not a good way to treat people who donate their time and labor. The volunteer base made Wikipedia the seventh most popular website in the world. We expect courtesy and respect, but received neither. That hurts morale.
Please provide a full explanation for recent board decisions and reconsider your top-down approach.
Signers
edit
Petición al Consejo de administración de la Fundación Wikimedia
Nosotros, los voluntarios, hacemos un llamado al consejo para que otorgue a la comunidad de voluntarios a los proyectos de la fundación una participación más justa en la administración de la ésta. En su más reciente reunión, el consejo no sólo rechazó una propuesta que mejoraría la participación de la comunidad en los asuntos de la fundación, sino que también implementó una reestructuración inesperada del consejo que redujo la cantidad de diputados de la comunidad en el consejo. La comunidad no fue consultada acerca de esta reducción ala representación comunitaria y el consejo no ha proveído una explicación para este cambio.
Ésta no es una buena manera de tratar a gente que le dona su tiempo y dedicación a la fundación. La comunidad de voluntarios fue la que hizo a este website el séptimo más popular de todo el mundo. Esperamos cortesía y respeto a cambio, pero no recibimos ninguna de las dos. Eso hiere a la moral.
Favor de proveer una explicación detallada de las decisiones recientes del consejo y reconsiderar la forma en que se toman las decisiones.
Firmantes
edit
Pétition au comité directeur de base de Wikimedia:
Nous, les volontaires, demandons au conseil de donner à la communauté des volontaire une voix dans le gouvernement de la fondation. Au cours de sa dernière réunion, le directeur du comité a non seulement rejeté une proposition visant à améliorer l'implication de la communauté dans les sujets traités par la Fondation, mais a mis en application une restructuration inattendue visant à réduire les sièges de la communauté au conseil. La communauté n'a pas été consultée au sujet de cette réduction de représentation et le conseil n'a fourni aucune explication pour ce changement.
Ce n'est pas une bonne manière de traiter les personnes qui donnent de leur temps et travaillent sur les projets de Wikimedia. Les volontaires ont fait de ce projet le septième site Web le plus populaire dans le monde. Nous nous attendons à être traité avec courtoisie et respect, mais n'avons reçu ni l'un ni l'autre. La morale n'est pas sauve.
Nous vous demandons de nous fournir des explications complètes quand aux récentes décisions du conseil, et nous vous demandons de reconsidérer votre gestion hiérarchique.
Signataires
edit
Petizione alla Foundation Board of Trustees:
Noi, i volontari, chiediamo al Board di dare alla comunità di volontari voce in capitolo riguardo il governo della Foundation. Durante il suo ultimo incontro, il Board of Trustees non solo ha rifiutato la proposta di aumentare il ruolo della comunità nelle questioni che riguardano la Foundation, invece ha messo in atto una ristrutturazione inaspettata per ridurre i posti scelti dalla comunità nel Board. La comunità non è stata consultata su questa riduzione di rappresentazione ed il Board non ha fornito alcuna spiegazione per questo cambiamento.
[1]
Questo non è un bel modo di trattare le persone che hanno donato il loro tempo e il loro lavoro. Solo grazie al lavoro di questi volontari questo sito web è diventato il settimo sito più popolare. Ci aspettiamo cortesia e rispetto, tuttavia non le abbiamo ricevute. Questo ci ferisce.
Per favore fornite una spiegazione approfondita per le recenti decisioni del Board e riconsiderate le vostre decisioni classiste.
I Firmatari
edit
Please translate/repost the above to other projects and languages, with a link to the other location(s) on
the talk page
To aid in translation of the petition, all signatures have been moved off the petition and onto a subpage which is transcluded below. Please visit
if you wish to continue signing. Thanks.
Durova
00:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Geo.plrd
00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Messedrocker
00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Danny
02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Bstone
03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Chetblong
03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Riana
03:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
BoL
Talk
03:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Cla68
03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Snowolf
How can I help?
03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
With the distinguish as Swat below that the volunteer concil isn't part of my signature.
Snowolf
How can I help?
05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
FastLizard4
03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
I don't support the volunteer council idea, but the board's restructuring is a terrible idea.
Swatjester
04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Fale
04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Tiptoety
04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Seth Finkelstein
05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, folks. But
communes tend to end in exploitation
reply
Scarian
07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Sagaciousuk
08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Transparency on matters such as this is not an unreasonable request, but really it should never have to be requested.
reply
Millosh
09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Per Swatjester, don't agree with the VC. However, the restructure is a
really bad idea
and needs more input. And of course, if you ask the chapters if they'd like a seat, I'm sure they'd definitely support your proposal. That's not asking for input.
^demon
11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Lankiveil
11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
, please reconsider this and get some appropriate community input before making such sweeping changes.
reply
Anonymous101
14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
DragonFire1024
15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
: Slick move board. I think the word 'trustees' is losing its definition here.
reply
Davewild
15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Directly elected community representatives should make up at least half of the board.
reply
Agree with
Sagaciousuk
, transparency is a good thing.
Cirt
15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
MinuteElectron
16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The VC is irrelevant, but the manner of this decision is very concerning. --
Visviva
16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Llywrch
16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Raul654
16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
DGG
16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
, with the reservation that the VC was not necessarily the best approach. The board should not be self-perpetuating, but elected.
reply
Dylan Lake
16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Blood Red Sandman
(Talk)
(Contribs)
16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
CComMack
17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
, with the irrelevant caveat that I opposed the VC.
reply
GRBerry
17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Joe
17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
, with DGG's reservation.
reply
Majorly
talk
18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Kaldari
18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Filll
18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Seddon69
18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
WilyD
21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Why is Jimbo afraid of running for election? He is appointed to everything. Let there be an election for dictator for live.
Zginder
21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ali'i
22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Wesley Gray
23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Per Swatjester, yes -
is
23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Maxim
(talk)
23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Zscout370
23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Mardetanha
talk
23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Dtobias
00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
These WMF folks seem charmingly naive. Please take this feedback in stride.
Jehochman
01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Captain
panda
02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Josiah Rowe
02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I'm less troubled by the restructuring than by the way it was brought about without any community input.
Josiah Rowe
02:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
seresin
¡?
02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Enough with the crap. Just enough with it!
Mike Halterman
03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
We're not as crazy as you must think we are. We'd have supported the inclusion of expertise seats. --
JayHenry
03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Thomas H. Larsen
04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
talk
05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Viridae
Talk
06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Hmwith
11:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
66.193.210.90
15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Kncyu38
15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
en:User:Dorftrottel
reply
Harel
15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -
Mtmelendez
Talk
17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Hierarchies are not the way we should be operating. Explanation required, as is some more voicing of the concerns we as a community have.
Anthøny
18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nick
01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
They "
talked about how best to represent the full array of community members
" and decided to dilute the influence of directly elected members? Interesting. -
BanyanTree
02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Jimbo shouldn't have to worry about re-election so much that he wants a permanent spot. This move is unnecessary, bureaucratic, and, frankly, power-grabbing.
Paragon12321
02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Jaakobou
09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
nonky
65.148.61.178
02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fleetflame
)(agree with Mtmelendez)
reply
Colour me unimpressed.
Naerii
03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Shades of Larry Sanger
Supertheman
13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
I think that a Council of contributors could provide a useful addition to the Wikimedia Foundation structure.
Yann
13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
We the Wikimedian community is the most important asset of the WMF and is the most significant reason for its success and reputation today. But how the WMF treat the community (i.e. us) is genuinely
disappointing, discouraging and shameful
, and is best demonstrated by this board restructure proposal. In this board of 10 places, community seats, elected by universal suffrage, are limited to 3 and only 3!! In contrast, the Board (most likely the Chair) can appoint 4 members at his/her pleasure (officially on their "expertises" which are poorly defined),
regardless of their status (or the lack of) in the community and acceptence of its values
. This ratio of appointed seats reminds me of authoritarian states and Middle-Ages/colonial legislatures, where the majority of parliament is directly appointed by the monarch/head of state/ruling party. The chapters seats are also profoundly flawed, as it places chapters of less populous countries in a disadvantaged place, and the majority of users from America (the #1 source of wikimedians) does not have a say on those seats as few states have chapters planned.
Combining this semi-elected board and opaque practices of the WMF
(such as hesitant in publishing minutes of board meetings, statistics [e.g. Global and enwiki on stats.wikimedia.org], and the lack of Annual Reports .etc) the board and the WMF is increasingly isolated from the Wikimedians and the public until a(nother) crushing disaster happens. Let's face it everyone: the
Wikimedia Foundation is dashing down the road of Authoritarianism. ACT NOW
and save it before it is too late. (My suggested improvements on the discussion page) --
Computor
14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The Chair does not decide of the appointed members, the entire board does. The last appointed members are Domas (a long time developer member of the core team, who would never be elected by the community, though the developers are also a precious bit), Michael Snow (who was nearly elected last time by the community, and who is a lawyer), and Stu (after the community has failed repeatedly to elect a member who could be a treasurer, truely mandatory position in an organization handling 5 millions dollars per year). Last board meetings minutes have been published and all resolutions are published. Lack of Annual Reports until now was mostly due to lack of human resources to write them. I fully apology that we did not talk more about the re-organization, but the arguments listed above are simply flawed.
Anthere
10:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Thanks for your prompt response, Anthere. I certainly trust your leadership of the WMF. However your answer did not address my worries. We cannot guarantee that the people succeeding you can hold up a satisfactory level of integrity, openness and community recognition.
Isn't Carolyn Doran enough?
The current proposal, with such ~40% of seats appointed by a small party, is a hotbed of unpleasant businesses/affairs. The WMF is constantly under political influences (Senate and Department of Justice included) and commercial influences (such as venture capitalists), and
the board is a primary entry point if they want to exert effective CONTROL over the community, the encyclopedia (by Oversight), and all confidental data (e.g. IP addresses of Wikimedians, OTRS)
. Board members have access to confidential information and technical priviledges that could dwarf an admin (which, comparing with a board member, is really "no big deal"...). Yet comparing with the heated and mass participation of the RFA process, 4 near-all-mighty board members are chosen behind closed doors, with little communication with the community, let alone scrutiny. How can we be sure that they are working in the best interest of the community,
not their own agenda?
The only way to do so is requiring every member to undergo intense community scrutiny and a community-wide approval procedure. That is, I am not against the Chair/Board to put forward their candidates, but they must serve
only after suffcient community interaction (an interactive, RFA-like process) and recognition (by means of commuity-wide voting)
. Since you can apologize for not sufficiently consulting the community before drawing up this proposal (which is encouraging), I believe sincerity can be best demonstrated by withdrawing the current widely criticised proposal, and only come up with another after a Wikimedia-wide in-depth consultation and explanation. If this board restructuring gets implemented despite this petition,
this incident has demonstrated how helpless and powerless the community is in front of the Board. ISN'T THIS Authoritarianism?
I beg everyone to look, and see this fact.--
Computor
15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The Carolyn story is absolutely unrelated, and whether the board is entirely community elected or not will make no difference in the future on such matters. First because she was hired by community board members (who may actually do more mistakes than professionals), second because hiring staff is in the hands of the Executive Director now (as of today, the board only hire Sue). In short, highlighting the point is just failing to convince me, because it is totally irrelevant to the discussion topic.
Regarding the operations of the projects themselves, you are actually mistaken if you think that we have access to information and technical privileges that would dwarf an admin. Quite the contrary... most emphatically, NO board member has shell access anymore (only our core tech team does). Even as chair, I do not have the general mailing list password (so I can not access discussion data on private list, nor remove (to censor) a member or a moderator of any list. I am steward because I was elected steward many months before the elections, but most board members are not stewards (they are certainly NOT given the access for no reason). If I make myself a checkuser or an oversight on the projects, everyone will see it in the meta log. So, it is entirely transparent. I will add that I am no admin on OTRS either (I think Kat is, though I am not sure. if so, her access was given before she became board member). I do not mean to deny your worries, but I would like you to simply realize that a board member does not have access to any special data because he is board member. Also, it has been very much emphasized (and is clearly written in the job description of a board member, that a board member should not get involved at the operational level on the project, as board member. This is SUPER important, and should be repeated as many times as necessary, both to community and to new board members of course. We are also, just as you are, under the rules of certain policies, such as the privacy policy. Contrariwise to most editors, given that we provide our personal information, in case of a problem and of abuse (such as privacy violation), you may sue us. Again, not to deny your worries, but simply to clarify certain things.
How to make sure outsiders will not push their own agenda ? Well, first, community members also have personal agendas. Second, you are absolutely right that it is a MAJOR issue; we call it the duty of loyalty (board member must be loyal to the organization, and put the interest of the organization before their own interest. ). I asked Mike Godwin to work on a Plegde of commitement, where board members will agree to a certain standard in terms of behavior. Also, for now over a year, all board members have to inform the board of their own conflict of interests.
The change of bylaws have already been approved by the majority of the board, and such a vote can not be "cancelled" or "withdrawn". It is simply not legal to do that. I would like to point out that, even though I personally deeply regret you have not been more involved, the majority of the board consider that this is the best solution as of today. So, there is not much sense to request now that a new proposition be made. It is not a "if this is implemented". It is implemented *right now* with the ongoing elections (since there will be only one seat this year, and three next year).
The personnal lesson I learn from this is dual. First, I will further insist on making sure that all new board members abid to our mission and our values; further insist that they get involved with the community, participate to Wikimania etc... It is important to make sure that no board member stays a complete "outsider" once he is on the board. The second thing is that we need to develop systems (urgently) to better get feedback from the community. You may be 70 or so to sign here, but this is only a small part of the total community, and this is strongly english biased. We need to make sure to collect/involve a huge vibrant community. And that's a huge challenge to do so.
Anthere
21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Hmm... About the last issue: There are some of us which are not native speakers of English (as I noticed until now: there are people which native languages are it, fr, zh, es, fa, sr). Yes, majority of signers came from en.wp, but this is because of the fact that en.wp is the biggest project. Also, note that the majority of, maybe, even 90% of contributors are
indifferent
toward anything related out of the of articles about which they are taking care. More than 20 signers here is a strong signal that something should be changed. --
Millosh
21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
(reply to Anthere) The Carolyn incident is very much related as she entered the foundation with little community's knowledge and interacted with it rarely (I don't even know if she had an account on Wikipedia). Yet she acquired the status and power of Chief Operating Officer. It turns out that she has cheated all of us. The community can't even monitor her actions or estimate the damage she has done because all her involvements are hidden from the community. Even the resolution regarding her removal is confidental (It is listed on the foundation website yet no ordinary Wikimedian can read it). This gives us a good reason to believe that something nasty was hidden.
This gives a very strong sense of censorship and cover-up, and is a solid example of WMF's practice of secrecy.
The Carolyn story is related, not because of how she entered the foundation (she had the powers anyway),
but because of how little we know of her (and thus the REAL damages she did), which is going to happen again on the appointed board members
unless community involvement and scrutiny is made mandatory.
The
office actions
policy allows "members of the Board of Trustees" and "other staff members" to modify site contents in the name of legal actions. Privacy policy also gives vague conditions on the access of confidential information, not to mention "The Board of Trustees has the ultimate authority on all matters pertaining to the Wikimedia Foundation" according to
foundation issues
What if they pass ANOTHER secret resolution (e.g. A "Microsoft/News Corp/Florence/Jimbo resolution") to sideline the policies?
As we have seen, policies and even by-laws can be amended easily by passing resolutions. Besides, when they do such things they are not required to explain/communicate with the community, or share any evidence to back up their actions (similar to Carolyn's "secret resolution").
The power of the board of trustees is therefore unlimited and unrestrained, and there is no REAL transparency and no guarantee of integrity without the supervision of the community.
I have checked again, and found a second secret resolution, "Vote: board membership - february 08".
There is ALREADY a secret resolution concerning how the board will be (or IS) formed. What is WMF trying to hide regarding the formation of the new board??
I cannot see why resolutions cannot be revoked. Just pass another resolution to undo what it has done. It is only a plan of forthcoming events, nothing permanent has happened (e.g. deletion of data).
What it requires is the willingness to listen and the courage to make the correction. Unfortunately, the stubbornness of the WMF shows that it has neither.
That is the reason why the community is so disappointed - some to what it has done, but also to its adamant attitude.
If you say that there are just a few of us here, that's because the rest of the disappointed didn't bother to protest -
they simply left (or will leave) the project silently.
I genuinely agree with WMF's noble mission to bring free knowledge to the world, and I agree that the board needs restructuring - but this is not the right direction. I feel a sense of duty to point out to all Wikimedians, so WMF can change for the better -
yes We can
(serious). --
Computor
19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
99.9% of wikipedia edits are made by the community, not the board members. Denying us an opinion is denying the importance of what we've collectively achieved. We built this encyclopedia into what it is; a reference and information source for hundreds of thousands of people.
80.177.10.254
18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
If the Foundation wants to ignore our community, I would like to boycott donation to it. My decision is like boycotting the Walt Disney Company for indirectly escalating the problems of the
American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term
that puts Wikimedia Commons under major turmoil.--
Jusjih
00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(outraged 11-site admin)
reply
Van
Tucky
02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Utkarshraj Atmaram
06:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
It is important that a majority be chosen directly by the community of contributors. Chapter reps should have a place too, but not at the expense of direct contributors. So far the contributors have made excellent choices in every election. Why weaken their voice?
Dovi
10:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Oldak
Quill
11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
I don't support the volunteer council idea, but believe strongly that directly elected community representatives should make up at least half of the board.
JGHowes
talk
14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Filnik
16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
GRuban
06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
FWN
15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
After seeing the effects this has caused, particularly the retirement of some of our admins, I feel i must sign.
Steve Crossin
17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Monobi
talk
18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Charitwo
18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The board has gone too far. That they have every right to do this (which I fully endorse) does not mean that they should do it, or that I am obligated to endorse it I have no tolerance for institutionalized hypocrisy. I submit that the board needs us more than we need them. It is time to either mutiny, or to leave altogether. I'd like to see them try to run it all by themselves. How dare they pull a despicable stunt such as this! They should be ashamed. They should come crawling back to the community and beg for full forgiveness, NOW.
Kmweber
18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
You got it. That's what we should do :) This petition won't work, I'm afraid.
Snowolf
How can I help?
09:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Not unless there is another zero behind the current no. of signee ... but we have hopefully made ourselves heard to future trustees on how much the community treasures a say on the board. I expect the effects of this petition will be subtle rather than explicit.--
Computor
16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Aqwis
18:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Lycaon
00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Per Swatjester.
giggy
:O
01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
FiloSottile
14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Stef Mec
16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Ragimiri
21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The board is slowing alienating the volunteer community, all the while telling us that we are foolish or mad to feel alienated. They really seem to have fallen out of touch completely, and have done nothing to allay fears and paranoia that control of Wikipedia is slowly being transferred to unaccountable and rather secretive organizations. I'm really starting to think that they've created a world for themselves where the larger community is an abstraction and an obstacle, rather than the body and soul of what we call "Wikipedia". Serious concerns about the integrity of the project are widespread, and, frankly, we need much more than a gesture at this point. It's time to insist on a radical rethinking of the board itself. If anyone has any serious grassroots reform efforts afoot, please get in touch with me. I'm sick of just
watching
Wikipedia be taken away. --
F. Metro
This is a pretty poor move on the part of the Wikimedia board and it's depressing the way that something that's supposed to be trying to spread free knowledge is so shadowy and out of touch with the volunteers actually carrying out its mission.
Wikipedia user Tombomp
--
89.145.253.165
10:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
EJF
15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
This underminds the basis of Wikipedia!
142.33.43.23
18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Fabexplosive
The archive man
18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
70.60.99.192
, from
en wp
05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Garfieldairlines
18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Garfieldairlines at fr wikipedia
reply
Dereckson
18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Chstdu
16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Noroton
21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Cmelbye
22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Legoktm
00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Levg
11:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Yug
04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
tired of odds behaviours
reply
Poppy
09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ceedjee
10:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Max
em
Han shot first!
11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Lerichard
00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Moumine
11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ryan524
04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Kingboyk
. Umm, no. We should be working towards a board fully elected by the community; the community
are
Wikipedia. Without us you'd have blank pages. Chapter-appointed seats create a new elite, giving power to a pretty insignificant subsection of the community at the expense of the average non-affiliated editor. Expert board members are totally not needed (the Board can hire advisors and act on their advice in a proper fashion). And it
really
is time that Jimmy stood for election like the rest of us. 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Enigmaman
21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Benutzer:Inspektor.Godot (de)
77.188.125.162
21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Wikidsoup
21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
User:sonicthehedgehog9000
Schutz
07:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Cinik
17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Bramlet Abercrombie
13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
ZaDiak
06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
I think it is a bad idea to decrease the role of the community of editors in governing of WMF
Alex Bakharev
02:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Amgine
20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Rory096
02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Luna Santin
I've put a good amount of thought into this, and I keep coming back to it. The board should not be closed, and should be responsive to the needs of the community -- I think it's become less so, over time, and is likely to continue to become more closed and less responsive as these sudden changes pan out. Let's not prove our critics correct, hm?
07:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The community made the project what it is today. To neglect the community like this is the biggest slap in the face ever.
Kwsn
07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Jtico
talk
21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Thekohser
14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it's not perceived as hypocritical to sign this, being that I am running for a Board seat, on a platform that largely intends to bring
more
control of the projects to the Board of Trustees; however, I want all to understand that such a long-term objective is completely predicated on first cleaning up the Board and Staff so that evasion, deflection, and refusal to be accountable are no longer standard procedure in the face of criticism. I absolutely agree that the projects' most dedicated, earnest contributors need to be shown a great deal more respect and gratitude from the Foundation -- and that's why I'm signing.
reply
Dtobias
17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
rootology
22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
I hate to see the wikimedia foundation completely disregard the hard work and opinions of so many volunteers. The board's actions as of late are a shameful disgrace, and they should immediately work to reverse the damage they have done.
CrazyChemGuy
05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Omegatron
talk
01:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Merkinsmum
09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ilya78
15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Nn123645
15:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
80.58.205.45
15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
DuncanHill
20:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Vernon White
01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Melancholie
13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
flrn
17:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
--
Bertrand GRONDIN
Talk
23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Vibhijain
15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
Retrieved from "
Categories
Community
Proposals
Petitions to the Wikimedia Foundation
Community petition
Add topic