If some more people leave, presumably the foundation can go back to hosting Wikipedia and funding the occasional project to improve it, after extensive user input.
You know, instead of this playing startup thing.
You know, instead of this playing startup thing.
You cannot go into an organization with such an extreme ethos around transparency and openness as the WMF and get away with secretly coming up with a plan to compete against Google. That's what was done, and I don't care who on the Board say it wasn't ever a plan to compete against Google with a search engine made by the WMF: that was the plan cooked up by Damon, and I'm certain Lila kept going with it, even when Damon left.
It was discussed for a long time when I was active in the community. People who were active in the community championed it.
The execution seems to have been less than successful. The way that some things were introduced were also less than stirling. Rolling do,etching like the VE on a shoestring budget is also quite difficult, on such a massive project.
Sue didn't always get things right, and during her tenure mistakes were made. She was, IMO, amazing though. When she left, she had bedded down an amazing amount of important processes, including governance and other important organizational matters. Her technical skills weren't perhaps as good as her other skills (but actually, they weren't that bad really). There were issues that needed addressing by the next ED, but there always will be matters that need addressing! Nobody leaves an organization in 100% perfect running order.
Lila has not only left the WMF with issues, she has destroyed a good deal of trust, and left the WMF's governance, openness and transparency in tatters.
Though, as you say, Wikipedia's culture also requires openness as well.
The whole timeline reads really weird to me as well - with people entering and exiting the WMF so fast - I am of the external subjective opinion that at least some of them were simply extracting money from the WMF.
It reads as if they may have negotiated some exit packages and literally just took them.
That is a LONG list of "directors" which I could be completely off-base here, but unless the env was far more toxic than is being presented, SOME of these people certainly extracted personal value from being there a short period.
The fucked up bit though is none of that; it is that wikipedia is now a foundation of who we are digitally as a species, and to see that there is SIGNIFICANT apparent risk to it falling apart is extraordinarily alarming to me.
One of the emails sent said that the risk to domain/innate/tech memory leaving with the exodus impending from eng is super scary prospect.
If I were someone well monied at Google, I'd step in and buy the whole ordeal as it is a major part of who we now are, both digitally and organically.
The entire BoT should be disbanded, new members appointed and Jimmy Wales should take a break for 6-12 months and have no direct say in anything or participate in any way, then come back. His "Founder" status should be modified to allow for greater accountability.
"We've fired the entire board due to mismanagement! Now our editors and engineers need a better leadership ... please donate to help us though this difficult transition as we end this madness once and for all."
The publicity of that campaign would probably be enormous.