[Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

jmh649
I agree having all board members engage with the community in their own
voice is likely the best way forwards. All of us will take your statements
as representing whatever fraction of the board you are unless you state
otherwise. There is nothing wrong with a board that disagrees with each
other, all I request is that you do not pretend their is "consensus" were
their isn't one. We as a community disagree all the time. We however are
still able to work together transparently and get a lot done.

One of the roles of the board is to determine "WMF's long term strategy"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effective_Board_oversight
I tried to get a discussion going on our internal board wiki. I also hoped
to bring the wider community and staff into that discussion so that we
could have some shared decision making around where we want to go. This is
how one gets buy in and is key in a volunteer movement. We have some
amazingly smart people both as staff and as community members. Long term
strategy should not be determined by the ED and a couple of board members.

Would be good to see the board leading a collaborative discussion of
strategy.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Anthony Cole
James, regarding "Long term strategy should not be determined by the ED and
a couple of board members", why do you say, "a couple of board members"?
There are ten board members. Are you saying a couple of them have
inordinate influence?

Yes, the board and ED should heed input from the volunteers and the
readership, but the final decision needs to be in the board's and ED's
hands. Which is fine if you have a board and ED who do listen to those
stakeholders.

A few other thoughts:

Until Lila arrived we had a board that was stratospherically out of touch
with, at least, the Wikipedia community, and an ED almost exclusively
focussed on fundraising and being liked by everybody - especially her
employees.

We still have a board, with the exception of Jimmy and Dariusz, who might
as well be on the other side of the moon. Jimmy makes himself available on
his Wikipedia talk page but, sadly, his incompetence for this job is clear.

Lila should have taken the community along with her as the Knowledge Engine
project was evolving. I don't know what was behind her reticence. I presume
an element was unwillingness to announce a thing while the thing was
shifting and changing from one day to the next. She hasn't engaged any more
with the wider volunteer community than Sue did, and that should change -
though it's hard to know how.

But since her arrival, the WMF has undergone significant change in its
orientation toward the readership and the wider volunteer community:

* The Community Strategy Consultation effectively highlighted the needs and
wants of our readers, as well as those of the wider volunteer community,
and this has informed the ongoing strategy design process - a process that
has deep community input. That strategy, in turn, informs funding decisions.

* The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community and
discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea Lab
Campaign accordingly.

* The WMF have accepted the FDC's proposal that the WMF submit to the same
reporting standard they expect of their chapters.

* There has been a 180 degree shift in the level of respect shown by the
WMF staff to the wider volunteer community. Volunteers who actually write
content and run Wikipedia all remember the contempt they were shown
regularly by all levels of the WMF just two years ago.

The latter is superficial but very important to us volunteers.

The former three points evince profound structural and philosophical change
and speak of genuine respect for the stakeholders that matter most. As a
Wikipedia volunteer, I'm deeply grateful for all these changes that have
happened during Lila's tenure.

I realise the staff must be missing the good old days when Sue was at the
helm and the idea of key performance indicators was a distant rumour, and
they effectively had a job for life. It must be hard to see popular but
incompetent colleagues getting sacked or encouraged to leave, to have
accountability forced on you, to have to be respectful to the volunteers,
to have a comfortable, plodding 5-year plan taken away from you.

If Sue had done her job, Lila wouldn't have to be doing most of these
unpleasant things.

The board needs to stand by its ED, and the ED needs to engage better with
her crew. Those who have been demonstrating gross disrespect for the ED
over the last few days need to leave.










Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:02 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree having all board members engage with the community in their own
> voice is likely the best way forwards. All of us will take your statements
> as representing whatever fraction of the board you are unless you state
> otherwise. There is nothing wrong with a board that disagrees with each
> other, all I request is that you do not pretend their is "consensus" were
> their isn't one. We as a community disagree all the time. We however are
> still able to work together transparently and get a lot done.
>
> One of the roles of the board is to determine "WMF's long term strategy"
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effective_Board_oversight
> I tried to get a discussion going on our internal board wiki. I also hoped
> to bring the wider community and staff into that discussion so that we
> could have some shared decision making around where we want to go. This is
> how one gets buy in and is key in a volunteer movement. We have some
> amazingly smart people both as staff and as community members. Long term
> strategy should not be determined by the ED and a couple of board members.
>
> Would be good to see the board leading a collaborative discussion of
> strategy.
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Brion Vibber-4
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community and
> discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea Lab
> Campaign accordingly.
>

FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Anthony Cole
I know.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community
> and
> > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea
> Lab
> > Campaign accordingly.
> >
>
> FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
>
> -- brion
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

James Alexander-3
It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.

As Ori hinted at I hope that everyone can reflect on the idea of causation
vs correlation
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation>. The
fact that good things have happened is not necessarily because of, but
despite of, current leadership. There is no doubt that there have been a
lot of good things to occur in the past while but those are, very
frequently, because people have been freed up some to do what they want. A
lack of direction or clear strategy can, in fact, have good side effects if
you have amazing people on board because they're able to make decisions
they've wanted to make for a while. However at the same time it can drive
them insane as they strive to keep it on that track and to avoid the taking
crazy routes or stop leadership from making decisions they feel would
disrupt the projects and the movement too much or go against our morals.

We have a lot of great new hires but much of that was driven by the good
people who already existed since it's the older ones who got into more
management type roles either officially or unofficially). Even at the
executive level it's telling that the 3 most long standing and solid
C-levels we have are all pre-lila appointees: Katherine (just before Lila
but still before), Lisa and Geoff. Our cycle of c-level replacements since
then have been both hires and departures (with, unfortunately, less hires
then departures still) including multiple short term hires (in roles that
are traditionally very long term).

I am not going to pretend I agreed with Sue at all times, or that every
decision she made was right however I at least felt like I knew what they
were (In fact I strongly disliked her strategy believing it bad for the org
and the movement, but again, I felt I knew what it was/understood it).
However I am also not going to accept the idea that Lila has made this
place so much better. As someone who saw them happen internally I don't
think her finger prints are really on any of the things you mention, they
were all 'despite' not 'because' of her and so much more could have been
done and wanted to be done. Slight exception possibly for the FDC bit but
that happened after all of this started exploding internally in the past
couple months and so she knew that she had  no trust left internally and
all of the staff close to it basically said "we can not defend you on this
if you don't go the FDC" so I still don't really see it as a proactive
choice on her front.

James
[[User:Jamesofur]]/[[User:Jalexander-WMF]]

Personal capacity, as signaled by my email address, but since some complain
I don't make it clear my role in WMF when I send this type of email: I am
also the Manager of Trust & Safety

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I know.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community
> > and
> > > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea
> > Lab
> > > Campaign accordingly.
> > >
> >
> > FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
> >
> > -- brion
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

SarahSV
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:
It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.

James, several staffers have talked about feeling unappreciated and
demoralized.​
​But that's how quite a few WMF staff made us feel before Lila arrived.
WMF-community relations couldn't have been worse. It certainly looks from
the outside as though Lila fixed a lot of that.

The question now is how we move forward, with no more casualties.

The best thing is surely for WMF staff to help Lila weather this storm,
which seems to have blown up around mistaken ideas about the Knowledge
Engine proposal.

In the longer term we need to brainstorm about how to manage
Foundation-community relations. Lila wanted to speak to the community
earlier about the Knowledge Engine grant, but was afraid to. Why was that?
A lot of the community's suspicion of change stems from us feeling we could
be separated from our work at any minute. That conservatism causes a lot of
frustration within the WMF. How can it be fixed?

Does the Board give enough support to the ED and leadership to the rest of
us? Can something be put in place within the WMF to help staffers so that
things like this don't blow up in public? We also ought to discuss asking
the WMF to become a membership organization with different bylaws so that
we really do elect the Board.

These are the discussions that will move us forward, because the real
problem here is not about individuals. It is about structure.

Sarah​
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Joseph Seddon-6
SarahSV, the rabbit whole goes far far beyond "mistaken ideas about the
Knowledge Engine".

Seddon

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:36 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
> but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
>
> James, several staffers have talked about feeling unappreciated and
> demoralized.​
> ​But that's how quite a few WMF staff made us feel before Lila arrived.
> WMF-community relations couldn't have been worse. It certainly looks from
> the outside as though Lila fixed a lot of that.
>
> The question now is how we move forward, with no more casualties.
>
> The best thing is surely for WMF staff to help Lila weather this storm,
> which seems to have blown up around mistaken ideas about the Knowledge
> Engine proposal.
>
> In the longer term we need to brainstorm about how to manage
> Foundation-community relations. Lila wanted to speak to the community
> earlier about the Knowledge Engine grant, but was afraid to. Why was that?
> A lot of the community's suspicion of change stems from us feeling we could
> be separated from our work at any minute. That conservatism causes a lot of
> frustration within the WMF. How can it be fixed?
>
> Does the Board give enough support to the ED and leadership to the rest of
> us? Can something be put in place within the WMF to help staffers so that
> things like this don't blow up in public? We also ought to discuss asking
> the WMF to become a membership organization with different bylaws so that
> we really do elect the Board.
>
> These are the discussions that will move us forward, because the real
> problem here is not about individuals. It is about structure.
>
> Sarah​
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Joseph Seddon-6
In fact the rabbit whole goes far far deeper down the rabbit hole :P

Seddon

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> SarahSV, the rabbit whole goes far far beyond "mistaken ideas about the
> Knowledge Engine".
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:36 AM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
>> but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
>>
>> James, several staffers have talked about feeling unappreciated and
>> demoralized.​
>> ​But that's how quite a few WMF staff made us feel before Lila arrived.
>> WMF-community relations couldn't have been worse. It certainly looks from
>> the outside as though Lila fixed a lot of that.
>>
>> The question now is how we move forward, with no more casualties.
>>
>> The best thing is surely for WMF staff to help Lila weather this storm,
>> which seems to have blown up around mistaken ideas about the Knowledge
>> Engine proposal.
>>
>> In the longer term we need to brainstorm about how to manage
>> Foundation-community relations. Lila wanted to speak to the community
>> earlier about the Knowledge Engine grant, but was afraid to. Why was that?
>> A lot of the community's suspicion of change stems from us feeling we
>> could
>> be separated from our work at any minute. That conservatism causes a lot
>> of
>> frustration within the WMF. How can it be fixed?
>>
>> Does the Board give enough support to the ED and leadership to the rest of
>> us? Can something be put in place within the WMF to help staffers so that
>> things like this don't blow up in public? We also ought to discuss asking
>> the WMF to become a membership organization with different bylaws so that
>> we really do elect the Board.
>>
>> These are the discussions that will move us forward, because the real
>> problem here is not about individuals. It is about structure.
>>
>> Sarah​
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>



--
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Brion Vibber-4
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
On Feb 20, 2016 3:18 PM, "Anthony Cole" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I know.

I suppose I should be clearer: it is my contention that it is largely the
people advocating for and implementing the improvements you cite that we
are losing due to the management crisis.

-- brion

>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> >
> > > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community
> > and
> > > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their
Idea
> > Lab
> > > Campaign accordingly.
> > >
> >
> > FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html

> >
> > -- brion
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Anthony Cole
In reply to this post by James Alexander-3
Thanks James.

I'm not on staff, nor am I part of the inner circle of volunteers in
constant touch with staff or the board. From the perspective of the wider
community, though, this all looks very dodgy. Lila's arrival marked for us
a revolution in the relationship. There is probably nothing either of us
can do to change our conflicting views.

Most disturbing to me is the reappearance of some former C-level staff, who
I (among many others) was delighted to see the back of, on this list and
Wikipedia Weekly, positioning themselves for the new dawn. It's very
unseemly seeing the people responsible for the shambles Lila inherited now
lighting up the torches.

On Sunday, 21 February 2016, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
> but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
>
> As Ori hinted at I hope that everyone can reflect on the idea of causation
> vs correlation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation>. The
> fact that good things have happened is not necessarily because of, but
> despite of, current leadership. There is no doubt that there have been a
> lot of good things to occur in the past while but those are, very
> frequently, because people have been freed up some to do what they want. A
> lack of direction or clear strategy can, in fact, have good side effects if
> you have amazing people on board because they're able to make decisions
> they've wanted to make for a while. However at the same time it can drive
> them insane as they strive to keep it on that track and to avoid the taking
> crazy routes or stop leadership from making decisions they feel would
> disrupt the projects and the movement too much or go against our morals.
>
> We have a lot of great new hires but much of that was driven by the good
> people who already existed since it's the older ones who got into more
> management type roles either officially or unofficially). Even at the
> executive level it's telling that the 3 most long standing and solid
> C-levels we have are all pre-lila appointees: Katherine (just before Lila
> but still before), Lisa and Geoff. Our cycle of c-level replacements since
> then have been both hires and departures (with, unfortunately, less hires
> then departures still) including multiple short term hires (in roles that
> are traditionally very long term).
>
> I am not going to pretend I agreed with Sue at all times, or that every
> decision she made was right however I at least felt like I knew what they
> were (In fact I strongly disliked her strategy believing it bad for the org
> and the movement, but again, I felt I knew what it was/understood it).
> However I am also not going to accept the idea that Lila has made this
> place so much better. As someone who saw them happen internally I don't
> think her finger prints are really on any of the things you mention, they
> were all 'despite' not 'because' of her and so much more could have been
> done and wanted to be done. Slight exception possibly for the FDC bit but
> that happened after all of this started exploding internally in the past
> couple months and so she knew that she had  no trust left internally and
> all of the staff close to it basically said "we can not defend you on this
> if you don't go the FDC" so I still don't really see it as a proactive
> choice on her front.
>
> James
> [[User:Jamesofur]]/[[User:Jalexander-WMF]]
>
> Personal capacity, as signaled by my email address, but since some complain
> I don't make it clear my role in WMF when I send this type of email: I am
> also the Manager of Trust & Safety
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I know.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the
> community
> > > and
> > > > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their
> Idea
> > > Lab
> > > > Campaign accordingly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
> > >
> > > -- brion
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Danny Horn
You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks James.
>
> I'm not on staff, nor am I part of the inner circle of volunteers in
> constant touch with staff or the board. From the perspective of the wider
> community, though, this all looks very dodgy. Lila's arrival marked for us
> a revolution in the relationship. There is probably nothing either of us
> can do to change our conflicting views.
>
> Most disturbing to me is the reappearance of some former C-level staff, who
> I (among many others) was delighted to see the back of, on this list and
> Wikipedia Weekly, positioning themselves for the new dawn. It's very
> unseemly seeing the people responsible for the shambles Lila inherited now
> lighting up the torches.
>
> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, James Alexander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
> > but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
> >
> > As Ori hinted at I hope that everyone can reflect on the idea of
> causation
> > vs correlation
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation>.
> The
> > fact that good things have happened is not necessarily because of, but
> > despite of, current leadership. There is no doubt that there have been a
> > lot of good things to occur in the past while but those are, very
> > frequently, because people have been freed up some to do what they want.
> A
> > lack of direction or clear strategy can, in fact, have good side effects
> if
> > you have amazing people on board because they're able to make decisions
> > they've wanted to make for a while. However at the same time it can drive
> > them insane as they strive to keep it on that track and to avoid the
> taking
> > crazy routes or stop leadership from making decisions they feel would
> > disrupt the projects and the movement too much or go against our morals.
> >
> > We have a lot of great new hires but much of that was driven by the good
> > people who already existed since it's the older ones who got into more
> > management type roles either officially or unofficially). Even at the
> > executive level it's telling that the 3 most long standing and solid
> > C-levels we have are all pre-lila appointees: Katherine (just before Lila
> > but still before), Lisa and Geoff. Our cycle of c-level replacements
> since
> > then have been both hires and departures (with, unfortunately, less hires
> > then departures still) including multiple short term hires (in roles that
> > are traditionally very long term).
> >
> > I am not going to pretend I agreed with Sue at all times, or that every
> > decision she made was right however I at least felt like I knew what they
> > were (In fact I strongly disliked her strategy believing it bad for the
> org
> > and the movement, but again, I felt I knew what it was/understood it).
> > However I am also not going to accept the idea that Lila has made this
> > place so much better. As someone who saw them happen internally I don't
> > think her finger prints are really on any of the things you mention, they
> > were all 'despite' not 'because' of her and so much more could have been
> > done and wanted to be done. Slight exception possibly for the FDC bit but
> > that happened after all of this started exploding internally in the past
> > couple months and so she knew that she had  no trust left internally and
> > all of the staff close to it basically said "we can not defend you on
> this
> > if you don't go the FDC" so I still don't really see it as a proactive
> > choice on her front.
> >
> > James
> > [[User:Jamesofur]]/[[User:Jalexander-WMF]]
> >
> > Personal capacity, as signaled by my email address, but since some
> complain
> > I don't make it clear my role in WMF when I send this type of email: I am
> > also the Manager of Trust & Safety
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > I know.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the
> > community
> > > > and
> > > > > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their
> > Idea
> > > > Lab
> > > > > Campaign accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
> > > >
> > > > -- brion
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Brandon Harris

        Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!

        I don't understand why we're still talking about this!


> On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
> understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.

---
Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] :: made of steel wool and whiskey




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Anthony Cole
Ah, Brandon. Thanks for writing me off as "the folks at Wikipediocracy."
I'm also the folks at en.Wikipedia and the folks on the board of
WikiProject Med Foundation. And I give a shit about Wikipedia.

This push for the removal of the ED is coming from staff. And failed staff.
If you want support from the wider editor community, you'll need to bring
us with you. I'm making it clear to you that presently you haven't done
that yet. Maybe you don't need to.



On Sunday, 21 February 2016, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>         Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>
>         I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
> > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] <javascript:;> :: made of steel wool
> and whiskey
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Risker
In reply to this post by Brandon Harris
This is a difficult time for everyone.  Staff, particularly staff who work
out of the San Francisco office, have seen and been through things that are
not well known or understood outside of that small group; even "highly
involved" volunteers aren't entirely in the loop.  Former staff continue to
have a knowledge advantage over the vast majority of community members
simply because of their continued ties to friends and former colleagues who
remain on staff.

I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect, even when
disagreeing with the interpretations that other people have made based on
the (often comparatively limited) information that they have available.  I
can honestly say that I know some things that perhaps SarahSV and
Anthonyhcole don't know, but I certainly don't know everything - and I have
been in the SF offices twice in the last six months as a volunteer and
regularly converse with staff in certain areas in my role as a volunteer
working on various things.

One of the major barriers is the legitimate concern that many staff have in
trying to communicate concerns in a manner that is not destructive, either
to the WMF as an organization, or to their own professional reputations.
The whistleblower provisions at the WMF are very narrow (essentially only
permitting reporting directly to the Board chair/chair of the Audit
Committee if there is reason to believe that a law has been broken, not
just internal policies no matter how severe), as one example.  I've been
aware of concerns for about a year now, myself, but I've still found out
quite a bit more over the last few weeks. For staff, a lot of those early
concerns are practically ancient history, and that knowledge hasn't been
disseminated to a much broader community. Not to put too fine a point on
it, but the majority of the audience here doesn't know.

Anthony, speaking for myself only, I don't think that your association with
Wikipediocracy is particularly relevant; other active members of that site
have expressed significantly different opinions, whether within or outside
of "WMF-related" locations like this mailing list or Meta or The Signpost.
I'd like to discourage anyone from assuming that there are monolithic and
unified positions on the current situation amongst any particular group.
That includes former and current staff, editors of particular projects,
commenters on external blogs or through other non-WMF media or criticism
sites, user groups, chapters, etc.  There are a lot of different points of
view, and a lot of different levels of knowledge and information.

I'm not going to say "let's assume good faith", don't worry.  I'm going to
say "don't beat up on people who have different levels of information".

Risker/Anne



On 20 February 2016 at 20:31, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>         Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>
>         I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
> > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] :: made of steel wool and whiskey
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Lila Tretikov
Hi Risker,

Information asymmetry is a big issue. For example, in my role there is a
lot I cannot say, I have responsibilities to protect people in the
organization both current and former. So, for example, if someone is fired,
even for cause, I would not say anything about this person that may hurt
their chances in the future. We allow people to message their own exits.

When a situation arises that maybe completely unfair to the senior officer
or a board member, as long as we are employed (and often if we are not) we
will not disclose the details to protect the organization as a whole.

As I am sure you practice all too often in your own professional life this
is required in a professional role: to take the heat and the arrows when
something goes wrong, and to give away credit for what goes right. I would
not have it any other way, but it is something people all too often ignore
or forget.

I'd love to have a broader FAQ than the current one for Knowledge Engine to
review and help provide transparency into any of the issues I can.

Lila

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is a difficult time for everyone.  Staff, particularly staff who work
> out of the San Francisco office, have seen and been through things that are
> not well known or understood outside of that small group; even "highly
> involved" volunteers aren't entirely in the loop.  Former staff continue to
> have a knowledge advantage over the vast majority of community members
> simply because of their continued ties to friends and former colleagues who
> remain on staff.
>
> I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect, even when
> disagreeing with the interpretations that other people have made based on
> the (often comparatively limited) information that they have available.  I
> can honestly say that I know some things that perhaps SarahSV and
> Anthonyhcole don't know, but I certainly don't know everything - and I have
> been in the SF offices twice in the last six months as a volunteer and
> regularly converse with staff in certain areas in my role as a volunteer
> working on various things.
>
> One of the major barriers is the legitimate concern that many staff have in
> trying to communicate concerns in a manner that is not destructive, either
> to the WMF as an organization, or to their own professional reputations.
> The whistleblower provisions at the WMF are very narrow (essentially only
> permitting reporting directly to the Board chair/chair of the Audit
> Committee if there is reason to believe that a law has been broken, not
> just internal policies no matter how severe), as one example.  I've been
> aware of concerns for about a year now, myself, but I've still found out
> quite a bit more over the last few weeks. For staff, a lot of those early
> concerns are practically ancient history, and that knowledge hasn't been
> disseminated to a much broader community. Not to put too fine a point on
> it, but the majority of the audience here doesn't know.
>
> Anthony, speaking for myself only, I don't think that your association with
> Wikipediocracy is particularly relevant; other active members of that site
> have expressed significantly different opinions, whether within or outside
> of "WMF-related" locations like this mailing list or Meta or The Signpost.
> I'd like to discourage anyone from assuming that there are monolithic and
> unified positions on the current situation amongst any particular group.
> That includes former and current staff, editors of particular projects,
> commenters on external blogs or through other non-WMF media or criticism
> sites, user groups, chapters, etc.  There are a lot of different points of
> view, and a lot of different levels of knowledge and information.
>
> I'm not going to say "let's assume good faith", don't worry.  I'm going to
> say "don't beat up on people who have different levels of information".
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
> On 20 February 2016 at 20:31, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> >         Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
> > everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
> > everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
> >
> >         I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation
> might
> > > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> > > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
> >
> > ---
> > Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] :: made of steel wool and whiskey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation

*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Marc-Andre
On 2016-02-20 10:36 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> Information asymmetry is a big issue. For example, in my role there is a
> lot I cannot say, I have responsibilities to protect people in the
> organization both current and former. So, for example, if someone is fired,
> even for cause, I would not say anything about this person that may hurt
> their chances in the future.

That is... downright brilliant.  Pretend to be caring and responsible,
while at the same time make an underhanded implication that the people
who left are villains and that you are a poor victim for being unable to
speak the Truth.  I hope you choke on shame for having the gall to even
so much suggest that pillars of the staff and community like Siko, Luis,
and Anna left for any reason other than your "exemplary" leadership.

"Information asymmetry" is right, mind you.  Staffers have shown
extraordinary restraint in keeping thing quiet and civilized so that
what has been going on does not reflect too badly on the foundation and
- by extension - the movement.  After all, as Ori so eloquently pointed
out earlier, the Foundation is full of passionate and dedicated people
who managed to do a great deal of good things despite all the "fun" of
being rudderless, leaderless and without anything resembling a vision.

If you have a single iota of integrity, please leave now before more of
the foundation crumbles around you.  Even if you were perfectly correct
in all you did and everyone else was perfectly wrong, any supposed
leader that has no trust from at least 93% of their staff should realize
that - if nothing else - they are a bad fit and cannot possibly salvage
the situation.

-- Marc / Coren


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Oliver Keyes-5
In reply to this post by Anthony Cole
Just staff and former staff? Huh. You must be reading
wikimedia-that-doesn't-include-liam-fae-former-board-members-or-almost-anyone-else-l.
What's it like there?

To Risker's point; "don't beat up on people who have less information
than you" is a good principle. But so is "don't call people
incompetent when the alternative is that you're missing something".
Speaking as both a volunteer and staff, Anthony, I have found your
attitude in this conversation and others on the subject to be deeply
unproductive. It would be good if you spent more time asking questions
and less time dismissing people's concerns.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ah, Brandon. Thanks for writing me off as "the folks at Wikipediocracy."
> I'm also the folks at en.Wikipedia and the folks on the board of
> WikiProject Med Foundation. And I give a shit about Wikipedia.
>
> This push for the removal of the ED is coming from staff. And failed staff.
> If you want support from the wider editor community, you'll need to bring
> us with you. I'm making it clear to you that presently you haven't done
> that yet. Maybe you don't need to.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>         Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
>> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
>> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>>
>>         I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
>> > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
>> > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>>
>> ---
>> Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] <javascript:;> :: made of steel wool
>> and whiskey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Anders Wennersten-2
Reading an following this thread makes me feel profoundly sad. And the
symptoms indicates for me that there is indeed  something "rotten" going on.

I feel deep sympathy for staff whose pain is seems to go very deep, and
I would really want to help out to to ease the problems if it was in my
capability.

But there is as Risker puts it a deep information asymmetry in this thread.

I am sitting far away from the SF office and have no direct contact with
staff and even if I read of the pain, I do not catch any concrete facts
what it is all about. The handling of Knowledge engine has not been
good, but it can be remedied. The Board is not optimal and perfect, but
the members are clever and loyal to our mission and I have no reason to
doubt that they will take care of things on their "table", even if
somewhat slower pace then people would want.

And even if I feel and sympathize with the frustration of staff I would
like to ask the inputs to this thread to be more factual and also show
the respect of each others as we are used to in our daily Wikipedia
dialogues.

Anders
With sympathy and love to all involved in this crisis







Den 2016-02-21 kl. 04:58, skrev Oliver Keyes:

> Just staff and former staff? Huh. You must be reading
> wikimedia-that-doesn't-include-liam-fae-former-board-members-or-almost-anyone-else-l.
> What's it like there?
>
> To Risker's point; "don't beat up on people who have less information
> than you" is a good principle. But so is "don't call people
> incompetent when the alternative is that you're missing something".
> Speaking as both a volunteer and staff, Anthony, I have found your
> attitude in this conversation and others on the subject to be deeply
> unproductive. It would be good if you spent more time asking questions
> and less time dismissing people's concerns.
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Ah, Brandon. Thanks for writing me off as "the folks at Wikipediocracy."
>> I'm also the folks at en.Wikipedia and the folks on the board of
>> WikiProject Med Foundation. And I give a shit about Wikipedia.
>>
>> This push for the removal of the ED is coming from staff. And failed staff.
>> If you want support from the wider editor community, you'll need to bring
>> us with you. I'm making it clear to you that presently you haven't done
>> that yet. Maybe you don't need to.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>          Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
>>> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
>>> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>>>
>>>          I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
>>>> understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
>>>> doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>>> ---
>>> Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] <javascript:;> :: made of steel wool
>>> and whiskey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anthony Cole
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Asaf Bartov-2
Despite everything, Anders, it is inappropriate for staff to publicly
prosecute Lila.  The board is aware of the many issues, quite a few not yet
public on any forum.  And it is for the board to solve.

   A.
On Feb 20, 2016 8:20 PM, "Anders Wennersten" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Reading an following this thread makes me feel profoundly sad. And the
> symptoms indicates for me that there is indeed  something "rotten" going on.
>
> I feel deep sympathy for staff whose pain is seems to go very deep, and I
> would really want to help out to to ease the problems if it was in my
> capability.
>
> But there is as Risker puts it a deep information asymmetry in this thread.
>
> I am sitting far away from the SF office and have no direct contact with
> staff and even if I read of the pain, I do not catch any concrete facts
> what it is all about. The handling of Knowledge engine has not been good,
> but it can be remedied. The Board is not optimal and perfect, but the
> members are clever and loyal to our mission and I have no reason to doubt
> that they will take care of things on their "table", even if somewhat
> slower pace then people would want.
>
> And even if I feel and sympathize with the frustration of staff I would
> like to ask the inputs to this thread to be more factual and also show the
> respect of each others as we are used to in our daily Wikipedia dialogues.
>
> Anders
> With sympathy and love to all involved in this crisis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2016-02-21 kl. 04:58, skrev Oliver Keyes:
>
>> Just staff and former staff? Huh. You must be reading
>>
>> wikimedia-that-doesn't-include-liam-fae-former-board-members-or-almost-anyone-else-l.
>> What's it like there?
>>
>> To Risker's point; "don't beat up on people who have less information
>> than you" is a good principle. But so is "don't call people
>> incompetent when the alternative is that you're missing something".
>> Speaking as both a volunteer and staff, Anthony, I have found your
>> attitude in this conversation and others on the subject to be deeply
>> unproductive. It would be good if you spent more time asking questions
>> and less time dismissing people's concerns.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, Brandon. Thanks for writing me off as "the folks at Wikipediocracy."
>>> I'm also the folks at en.Wikipedia and the folks on the board of
>>> WikiProject Med Foundation. And I give a shit about Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> This push for the removal of the ED is coming from staff. And failed
>>> staff.
>>> If you want support from the wider editor community, you'll need to bring
>>> us with you. I'm making it clear to you that presently you haven't done
>>> that yet. Maybe you don't need to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, Brandon Harris <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>          Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
>>>> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
>>>> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>>>>
>>>>          I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation
>>>>> might
>>>>> understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
>>>>> doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Brandon Harris :: [hidden email] <javascript:;> :: made of steel
>>>> wool
>>>> and whiskey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anthony Cole
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

SarahSV
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Despite everything, Anders, it is inappropriate for staff to publicly
> prosecute Lila.  The board is aware of the many issues, quite a few not yet
> public on any forum.  And it is for the board to solve.
>
>
Asaf, I agree, but it's happening, here and elsewhere. I hope there won't
be any more public attacks.

This isn't about how much people know. It's obvious that the KE was just a
flashpoint. It's about how to move forward without further casualties. I
don't believe that that isn't possible.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12