Recent firing?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
107 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

WJhonson
In a message dated 10/31/2009 6:46:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> Were you actually fired or did you resign after it was made clear to
> you that they didn't want you there any more? There is a difference
> (the latter looks better on your CV, for example).>>


Ha.  I'm not ashamed to say I've been fired.  Not once!  I cast a spell on
them and they were bankrupt within the year.  So there.

Some of the companies I've worked for think I'm the cat's meow (that's a
good thing), and some think I'm the devil incarnate.  I guess that's my
character.  I leave an impression that is not forgotten.

Mavericks get fired.  People who've never been fired might be too placid
for my taste.  Spice is part of life.

W


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Practically every state and municipal government in the US is subject
> to public disclosure laws, sometimes part of 'Government in the
> sunshine' legislation, which require most relevant information about
> the daily operations to be made available.  This usually includes
> information on employee performance, reasons for departure/dismissal,
> etc. about everyone from top management through the junior
> dog-catcher. Though the law usually does exclude highly
> private/personal information (for example, medical information).
>
> [I'm coming from a US centric angle here because that is what I know.
> Feel free to mentally replace US locations with any other place with
> robust records laws]
>
> Accordingly, I find the supposition that being very open about the
> operations of the foundation is somehow incompatible with
> professionalism or ethical behaviour to be simply unsustainable.
>  

I have to agree with the general philosophy of this approach.  The
problem is not confined to the US, and that Nathan should later raise a
contrast between California and North Carolina law only tells me that
the problems at a government level is far from being settled.  When we
are dealing with competing virtues (openness and privacy) the debate
always  becomes more intense.

Wikimedians are a naturally suspicious lot, for many of whom "Assuming
good faith" is little more than sloganeering. Does it come as any
surprise that the same people who question the integrity of
pharmaceutical company public relations will also put the same
suspiciousness to work in regards to their own corporate overlords? Many
of us are suspicious of corporatism, and WMF is a corporation. The
excuse that a corporation is still too small also soon wears thin.

This thread includes the word "firing" in its title. Whether or not the
word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?" That audience can easily
include potential former employers, who will look for easy ways to trim
a long list of applicants into a short list.  We can no more control
such low-level rumour mills than we can control large scale conspiracy
theories about the Kennedy assassination or why the towers fell on 9/11.

> Wikimedia is not a business. It is a publicly supported charity. The
> WMF depends on the public both for the funding used to cut everyone's
> paychecks and for the creation of the material which makes its sites
> worth visiting. In terms of man-hours-input the community of
> contributors dwarfs the foundation's full time staff considerably.
>  

Absolutely.

> The inescapable reality of this is that the employees and officers
> serve at the pleasure of the public. Although the chain is not a
> direct chain of command, it is no less real.  So I don't think it's
> surprising to see people making noises expressing a desire for the
> kind of openness which is technically available from state and local
> governance almost universally thought the US.
>  

In a lot of other places too.  The internet has made hiding high-level
misdeeds more difficult.  It is far more difficult for lobbyists to come
and go unnoticed than ever before.  Governments are still far from
perfect in their handling of these matters.

> I believe Wikimedia Foundation already has a stated goal of being on
> the leading edge of organizational openness and has done well /by
> commercial standards/.    Perhaps it's time to take that a step
> further and voluntarily subject the organization to the public record
> laws of some state or some composition or subset thereof.
>
> Not only would this advance openness but it may help avoid arguments
> over the form and level of openness by delegating those decisions to
> others who have thought harder about them than we have. It may also
> make cooperating with other organizations simpler because rather than
> trying to explain Wikimedia's bizarre one-off openness requirements
> and the inevitable debate about the wisdom of every aspect, it could
> be simply pointed out that the WMF operates under some particular
> rule-set used elsewhere.
>
> Pre-existing government openness rulesets also have the advantage of
> the existence of training materials for staff and layman guides for
> the public.


Those who say that the current severance was at too low a level to merit
such heated controversy are probably right, but it is up to WMF to be
sufficiently pro-active to avoid this kind of discussion about any
single individual.  The broader policy question remains an important
one.  If the result is that a public release needs to be made whenever
*anyone* quits or is dismissed, so be it.  An open and honest release
may be less damaging than the alternative.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Anthony-73
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Whether or not the
> word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
> over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
> between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?"

There seem to be only two emails in this thread with the individual's
name in them.  They probably should be deleted, especially if the
initial rumor was untrue.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Thomas Dalton
2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Whether or not the
>> word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
>> over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
>> between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?"
>
> There seem to be only two emails in this thread with the individual's
> name in them.  They probably should be deleted, especially if the
> initial rumor was untrue.

You can't delete an email. Email is a decentralised medium of communication.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Anthony-73
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Whether or not the
>>> word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
>>> over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
>>> between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?"
>>
>> There seem to be only two emails in this thread with the individual's
>> name in them.  They probably should be deleted, especially if the
>> initial rumor was untrue.
>
> You can't delete an email.

You can delete <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

masti-2
W dniu 01.11.2009 23:22, Anthony pisze:

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Dalton<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> 2009/11/1 Anthony<[hidden email]>:
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> Whether or not the
>>>> word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
>>>> over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
>>>> between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?"
>>>
>>> There seem to be only two emails in this thread with the individual's
>>> name in them.  They probably should be deleted, especially if the
>>> initial rumor was untrue.
>>
>> You can't delete an email.
>
> You can delete <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html
>
from archive yes. but not from individual mailboxes :(

masti

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Whether or not the
>>>> word accurately reflects the facts, the cat is out of the bag. It is all
>>>> over the internet where the audience tends to see little difference
>>>> between "He was fired," and "Was he fired?"
>>>
>>> There seem to be only two emails in this thread with the individual's
>>> name in them.  They probably should be deleted, especially if the
>>> initial rumor was untrue.
>>
>> You can't delete an email.
>
> You can delete <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html">http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-October/######.html

Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
other archive sites.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Anthony-73
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
> difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
> other archive sites.

So, what, don't do the right thing and delete it because some archive
sites might not do the same thing?  Whatever.  Not my fight.  And at
least the guy has a relatively common name.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Thomas Dalton
2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
>> difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
>> other archive sites.
>
> So, what, don't do the right thing and delete it because some archive
> sites might not do the same thing?  Whatever.  Not my fight.  And at
> least the guy has a relatively common name.

Obvious censorship (which hiding information which is readily
available elsewhere will be seen as) is rarely beneficial.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by WJhonson
[hidden email] wrote:

> Ha.  I'm not ashamed to say I've been fired.  Not once!  I cast a spell on
> them and they were bankrupt within the year.  So there.
>
> Some of the companies I've worked for think I'm the cat's meow (that's a
> good thing), and some think I'm the devil incarnate.  I guess that's my
> character.  I leave an impression that is not forgotten.
>
> Mavericks get fired.  People who've never been fired might be too placid
> for my taste.  Spice is part of life.
>
>  
Companies don't like employees who upset the apple cart and reveal that
the apples were made of plastic. ;-)


Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/11/1 Anthony:
>  
>> Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate
>> going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
>>
>> In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to
>> redefine a position altogether?
>>    
>
> If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will
> no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to
> pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of
> service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone
> you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have
> to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received
> lots of warnings and not improved.


Employee protection an union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S.
than in most developed country. Some states are significantly worse than
others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to
socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.

Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering
undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Pharos-3
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would
perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.

[general comment]

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/11/1 Anthony:
>>
>>> Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate
>>> going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
>>>
>>> In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to
>>> redefine a position altogether?
>>>
>>
>> If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will
>> no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to
>> pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of
>> service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone
>> you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have
>> to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received
>> lots of warnings and not improved.
>
>
> Employee protection an union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S.
> than in most developed country. Some states are significantly worse than
> others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to
> socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.
>
> Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering
> undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/11/1 Anthony <[hidden email]>:
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
>>> difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
>>> other archive sites.
>>
>> So, what, don't do the right thing and delete it because some archive
>> sites might not do the same thing?  Whatever.  Not my fight.  And at
>> least the guy has a relatively common name.
>
> Obvious censorship (which hiding information which is readily
> available elsewhere will be seen as) is rarely beneficial.

Right.  Removal of possibly libelous information is what would be seen
as the wrong thing to do.  "For a short time he was thought to have
been fired from the Wikimedia Foundation.  Nothing was ever proven."

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

WJhonson
In reply to this post by MZMcBride
"Proven" sounds a little strong to my mind.  I would say "there is no
evidence of how the termination occurred"

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Dan Collins-5
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
> > difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
> > other archive sites.
>
> So, what, don't do the right thing and delete it because some archive
> sites might not do the same thing?  Whatever.  Not my fight.  And at
> least the guy has a relatively common name.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

How can a WIKIMEDIAN, a member of a project that prides itself in the
freedom of information, support the censoring of information and the
stifling of free discourse like this?

--
DCollins/ST47
Stevens Institute of Technology Class of '13
Administrator, en.wikipedia.org
Maintainer, MediaWiki::Bot module
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Pharos-3
Pharos wrote:
> I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would
> perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
>  

So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to
call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response
to Thomas.

Ec

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>    
>>> If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will
>>> no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to
>>> pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of
>>> service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone
>>> you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have
>>> to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received
>>> lots of warnings and not improved.
>>>      
>> Employee protection and union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S.
>> than in most developed countries. Some states are significantly worse than
>> others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to
>> socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.
>>
>> Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering
>> undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.
>>    


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Chad
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pharos wrote:
>> I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would
>> perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
>>
>
> So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to
> call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response
> to Thomas.
>
> Ec
>

I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular
response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we
could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better
debate, even.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Pharos-3
FYI my comment was on the whole thread, not about any particular response.

Hence the "[general comment]" disclaimer.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Chad <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Pharos wrote:
>>> I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would
>>> perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
>>>
>>
>> So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to
>> call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response
>> to Thomas.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>
> I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular
> response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we
> could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better
> debate, even.
>
> -Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Dan Collins-5
2009/11/2 Dan Collins <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Yes, you can delete the archives on the WMF site. That does make much
>> > difference. It will still be in everyone's inboxes and on various
>> > other archive sites.
>>
>> So, what, don't do the right thing and delete it because some archive
>> sites might not do the same thing?  Whatever.  Not my fight.  And at
>> least the guy has a relatively common name.
>
> How can a WIKIMEDIAN, a member of a project that prides itself in the
> freedom of information, support the censoring of information and the
> stifling of free discourse like this?

Because some people recognise that in the real world you can't
blinding apply the same ideology in the same way to every situation.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Recent firing?

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Chad
2009/11/2 Chad <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Pharos wrote:
>>> I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would
>>> perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
>>>
>>
>> So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to
>> call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response
>> to Thomas.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>
> I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular
> response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we
> could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better
> debate, even.

I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you
want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right
ahead.

Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very
easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your
inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this
list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just
ignore it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123456