Community petition

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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_petition/sign if you wish to continue signing. Thanks.

1. Durova 00:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Geo.plrd 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Messedrocker 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Danny 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Bstone 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Chetblong 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. BoL (Talk) 03:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cla68 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Chris ^G 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. 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]

12. FastLizard4 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. 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]
14. Fale 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Tiptoety 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Seth Finkelstein 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Go for it, folks. But communes tend to end in exploitation.[reply]
17. Scarian 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. 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]
19. Millosh 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. 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]
21. Lankiveil 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC), please reconsider this and get some appropriate community input before making such sweeping changes.[reply]
22. Anonymous101 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. DragonFire1024 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC): Slick move board. I think the word 'trustees' is losing its definition here.[reply]
24. Davewild 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Directly elected community representatives should make up at least half of the board.[reply]
25. Agree with Sagaciousuk, transparency is a good thing. Cirt 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. MinuteElectron 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. The VC is irrelevant, but the manner of this decision is very concerning. -- Visviva 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Llywrch 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Raul654 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. 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]
31. Dylan Lake 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. CComMack 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC), with the irrelevant caveat that I opposed the VC.[reply]
34. GRBerry 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Joe 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC), with DGG's reservation.[reply]
36. Majorly (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Kaldari 18:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Filll 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Seddon69 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. WilyD 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. 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]
42. Ali'i 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Wesley Gray 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Per Swatjester, yes - Alison ^❤ 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Maxim_(talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Zscout370 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. --Mardetanha ^talk 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Dtobias 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. These WMF folks seem charmingly naive. Please take this feedback in stride. Jehochman 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Captain panda 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. 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]
53. seresin (¡?) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Enough with the crap. Just enough with it! Mike Halterman 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. 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]
56. Thomas H. Larsen 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. — E ^talk 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Hmwith 11:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. 66.193.210.90 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Kncyu38 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (en:User:Dorftrottel)[reply]
63. Harel 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. 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]
66. Nick 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. 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]
68. 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]
69. Jaakobou 09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. nonky
71. 65.148.61.178 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Fleetflame)(agree with Mtmelendez)[reply]
72. Colour me unimpressed. Naerii 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Shades of Larry Sanger Supertheman 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. 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]
75. 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]

76. 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]
77. 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]
78. VanTucky 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Utkarshraj Atmaram 06:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. 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]
81. Oldak Quill 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. 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]
83. --Filnik 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. --GRuban 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. FWN 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. 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]
87. Monobi (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. --Charitwo 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. 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]

90. --Aqwis 18:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. --Lycaon 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Per Swatjester. giggy _(:O) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. --FiloSottile 14:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. --Stef Mec 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. --Ragimiri 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. 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
97. 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]
98. --EJF 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. This underminds the basis of Wikipedia! 142.33.43.23 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. --70.60.99.192, from en wp 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. --Garfieldairlines 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Garfieldairlines at fr wikipedia[reply]
103. Dereckson 18:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Chstdu 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Noroton 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Cmelbye 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Legoktm 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Levg 11:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Yug 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) tired of odds behaviours[reply]
110. Poppy 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Ceedjee 10:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Lerichard 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Moumine 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Ryan524 04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. 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)
117. Enigmaman 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Benutzer:Inspektor.Godot (de) 77.188.125.162 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Wikidsoup 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. User:sonicthehedgehog9000
121. Schutz 07:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. --Cinik 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. ZaDiak 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. 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]
126. Amgine 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. --Rory096 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128. 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]
129. 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]
130. Jtico (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. 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]
132. Dtobias 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. rootology (T) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134. 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]
135. — Omegatron (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. Merkinsmum 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Ilya78 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138. Nn123645 15:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
139. 80.58.205.45 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
140. DuncanHill 20:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141. Vernon White 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142. Melancholie 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143. <flrn> 17:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
144. --Bertrand GRONDIN – ^Talk 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145. Vibhijain 15:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]