[Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

Thu Aug 18 12:57:28 UTC 2005

On 8/18/05 6:09 AM, "Anthere" <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Grey wrote:
> 
>> On 18/08/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Now that several people have expressed their feeling we are non
>>> transparent, I would like that they go further than just stating a
>>> situation, and make suggestions to improve.
>>> 
>>> Michael is mentionning that "with the developers, they struggle
>>> constantly with more pressing issues". And that "we could use three or
>>> four times as many developers".
>> 
>> 
>> Hackers rarely communicate outside of themselves. Fact of life in that
>> arena. However, the server log:
>> 
>> http://wp.wikidev.net/Server_admin_log
>> 
>> isn't too bad.
> 
> What is funny is that it is assumed allright that developers only
> communicate in their area, but it is not allright for others. Why ?
> 
> 

If you're saying that because the developers communicate in their area or in
somewhat of a closed fashion then it's okay for the board I think you would
be sadly mistaken.  The developers weren't elected by the community to
represent them.  The developers are only working on specific technology
issues whereas the board has oversight of the whole thing.

I made reference to this before Anthere but let me put it bluntly - you have
some work to do on boardsmanship.  Chiding those you represent for not
having complete enough complaints is not going to endear you to any hearts
nor help anything.  The board's position is one of governance, it shouldn't
be making day to day decisions on things that need to be run, that's what
officers are for.  Those officers should have clearly defined job
responsibilities set by the board and if they aren't living up to them then
the board, as a board, should give them direction.  Individual board members
have NO power outside of their vote in a duly convened board meeting.

When one of your constituents says to you that he doesn't feel you are
transparent, you don't insist on a dissertation on where you aren't
transparent, you take that feedback and you do that YOURSELF and determine
if it's valid and if it's something that can be used.  I'll give you a hint
though, he's not the only one that has said you're not being transparent.

When boards get into "shell" mode or the "us against them mode" is when
things get dangerous and you start to lose site of what your underlying
purpose is.  Long and short of it, listen to complaints even if you think
they're from crackpots.  Don't tell the crackpots they're crackpots just say
"think you very much, I'll consider that".  When there's a lot of them don't
resort to private IRC chats, emails amongst each other, or closed board
meetings to consider the issue.

Worst of all, don't tell people "we made a decision on this and it will be
announced in a few days" -- nothing says to people more "hey, we did this in
private and guess what, you're not good enough to know what we decided yet
or you would already know."

Just my advice after having served many years on many different boards of
various kinds.

--Guy (en User:Wgfinley)