|
|
1234
... 8
|
|
Hi all,
for those of you who do not watch the RecentChanges on the Foundation
wiki < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges>, I
think it might be somehow surprising to see that in a top-level
decision, almost all volunteer administrators of the wiki have been
stripped off their adminship yesterday evening (UTC time).
As far as I know, community members have been helping out maintaining
this wiki for as long as 2006, spending countless hours of their free
time on categorising existing pages, importing translations from Meta,
and recently, deleting unnecessary and broken pages left over by WMF staff.
Apparently, this is something that not only isn't appreciated, but
unwelcome. Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help
out with running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost
since the very start of the wiki.
Some questions come to my mind right now:
1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community members?
(I'm assuming it was Gayle, but it could've be someone from the
Communications department for all we know.)
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Why did you decide to desysop people straight away instead of
discussing things with them first?
These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a
riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a
correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does not
hold any official position within the WMF, and who has not been
desysopped in yesterday's purge—do you know who this person is?
-- Tomasz
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
---
Dear XXX,
Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
immediately.
Sincerely,
Gayle
--
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
---
Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
about knowing what these people do on the wiki
Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
"We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
when they're needed for a specific task."
Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
as much thee days but it still happens.
Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
under the foundation)
[1]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F>
[2]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung>
[3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
The same happend to the Wikimedia Blog.
Most of the moderators where volunteers (and the only real active ones
also). My moderator rights where removed and I have to go after that
myself, I didn't got a message or anything.
While I was list administrator for wikitech-l I got the mail also that I
needed to give my password so that the list can be run by the staff. I
didn't respond to that mail (Thought it was spam cause It was send by
gmail). \
It gives me the feeling that we need a bigger fundraiser cause people GET
PAYED for doing things other people DO FOR FREE.
Huib
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung> >
> [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Huib Laurens
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Huib Laurens < [hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> (Thought it was spam cause It was send by
> gmail). \
> ...
Wait.. what the..., Staff aren't using their wmf accounts for stuff
like that? which means the emails aren't archived properly...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
down like a lead balloon.
Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
going.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung> >
> [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Having an HR & IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
even so much as consulting with the community who keep the WMF's
presence on the internet working, nor without giving them an actual
reason as to why this has occurred.
I can only encourage Karen to either 1) explain why this was an
absolutely necessary step to make, or 2) reverse those actions.
Russavia
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Craig Franklin
< [hidden email]> wrote:
> This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
> something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
> rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
> volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
> she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
> down like a lead balloon.
>
> Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
> to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
> immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
> going.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>>
>> ---
>> Dear XXX,
>> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
>> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
>> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
>> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
>> immediately.
>> Sincerely,
>> Gayle
>> --
>> Gayle Karen K. Young
>> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 415.310.8416
>> www.wikimediafoundation.org
>> ---
>>
>> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
>> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
>> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>>
>> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
>> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>>
>> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
>> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
>> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
>> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
>> when they're needed for a specific task."
>>
>> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
>> as much thee days but it still happens.
>>
>> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
>> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
>> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
>> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
>> under the foundation)
>>
>> [1]. <
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F>> >
>> [2]. <
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung>> >
>> [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Apologies, I mean Gayle, not Karen.
Russavia
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Russavia < [hidden email]> wrote:
> Having an HR & IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
> person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
> even so much as consulting with the community who keep the WMF's
> presence on the internet working, nor without giving them an actual
> reason as to why this has occurred.
>
> I can only encourage Karen to either 1) explain why this was an
> absolutely necessary step to make, or 2) reverse those actions.
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Craig Franklin
> < [hidden email]> wrote:
>> This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
>> something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
>> rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
>> volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
>> she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
>> down like a lead balloon.
>>
>> Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
>> to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
>> immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
>> going.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>>
>> On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Dear XXX,
>>> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
>>> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
>>> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
>>> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
>>> immediately.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Gayle
>>> --
>>> Gayle Karen K. Young
>>> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 415.310.8416
>>> www.wikimediafoundation.org
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
>>> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
>>> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>>>
>>> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
>>> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>>>
>>> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
>>> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
>>> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
>>> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
>>> when they're needed for a specific task."
>>>
>>> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
>>> as much thee days but it still happens.
>>>
>>> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
>>> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
>>> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
>>> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
>>> under the foundation)
>>>
>>> [1]. <
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F>>> >
>>> [2]. <
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung>>> >
>>> [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
Go back to meta.
I'll be interested to see how long the WMF wiki will last before they hit
their first massive technical problem happens and they need to call in a
volunteer to fix it.
Deryck
On 11 May 2013 12:15, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung> >
> [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
on Internal-l.
After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
feelings about that. (And right now I'm also don't agree or understand
WMF's decision, but I'm waiting to hear them first).
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Deryck Chan < [hidden email]>wrote:
> Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
> Go back to meta.
>
> I'll be interested to see how long the WMF wiki will last before they hit
> their first massive technical problem happens and they need to call in a
> volunteer to fix it.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 11 May 2013 12:15, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
> >
> > ---
> > Dear XXX,
> > Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> > are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> > is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> > accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> > immediately.
> > Sincerely,
> > Gayle
> > --
> > Gayle Karen K. Young
> > Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.310.8416
> > www.wikimediafoundation.org
> > ---
> >
> > Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> > ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> > about knowing what these people do on the wiki
> >
> > Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> > would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
> >
> > "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> > ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> > presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> > given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> > when they're needed for a specific task."
> >
> > Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> > as much thee days but it still happens.
> >
> > Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> > position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> > changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> > since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> > under the foundation)
> >
> > [1]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F> > >
> > [2]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung> > >
> > [3]. < https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Deryck Chan wrote:
>Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
>by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
>Go back to meta.
Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
* Blog access has been restricted (as noted).
* Bugzilla adminship has been restricted to staff only.
* wikimediafoundation.org adminship is now restricted to staff and Board
Members.
* Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
sysadmins).
Relatedly, the Toolserver is being slowly killed in favor of a controlled
sandbox called "Wikimedia Labs" and all Wikimedia accounts are being
unified (with forceable usurps/renames) to make it easier to track and
control users across all Wikimedia wikis.
It's very surprising that the Board has been so quiet about all of this.
Generally, a few staff members (notably Philippe and his team) have tried
to create "tiers" in which paid staff are above volunteers. Even the most
trusted volunteers are no longer allowed to hold positions of trust within
the Wikimedia community. This is very bad. Are there ways to address this?
But to blame this on Gayle is kind of insane. It seems clear to me that
she's being used as a pawn here. There are very few indications that this
has anything to do with her, aside from a few log entries (from...
Philippe) inexplicably pointing to her name. And the curt e-mail she sent
out to affected users. Her involvement with the wiki would charitably be
described as negligible.
The director of _community advocacy_ (Philippe) is stripping nearly every
community member of user rights. And yet there's still no provided
rationale for the change in policy, other than it being based on a series
of private discussions. Meanwhile, the home page of
wikimediafoundation.org stresses how transparent the organization is.
This is a pretty disappointing day. I'd be interested to hear what Gayle,
Philippe, or the Board has to say.
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Itzik Edri wrote:
>Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
>side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
>on Internal-l.
>
>After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
>feelings about that. (And right now I'm also don't agree or understand
>WMF's decision, but I'm waiting to hear them first).
I agree that it would be nice to have a full explanation from the
Wikimedia Foundation here (particularly from Philippe and Gayle, who have
apparently conspired).
But I'm not sure I agree that time is needed to evaluate what has
happened. There was certainly no wait before users were stripped of their
user rights. The lack of any emergency makes this rash series of actions
even more upsetting and confusing.
Wikimedia _is_ its community. When a few staff members start to kick out
the community (from the blog, from Bugzilla, from volunteer sysadminning),
it's a pretty awful situation that needs to be immediately addressed, in
my opinion. The alternative is that most volunteers will simply go away.
While that may seem like a victory to certain staff members, I wonder when
they'll realize that it's these same volunteers that keep the projects
running. When the dedicated and trusted volunteers leave, their (paid)
jobs will soon follow. Wikimedia simply isn't sustainable without trusted
volunteers. Slapping them in the face does what?
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse the brevity and typos.
On May 11, 2013 4:36 PM, "MZMcBride" < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Deryck Chan wrote:
> >Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> >by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
> >Go back to meta.
>
> Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
>
> * Blog access has been restricted (as noted).
> * Bugzilla adminship has been restricted to staff only.
> * wikimediafoundation.org adminship is now restricted to staff and Board
> Members.
> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
> sysadmins).
Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
not political.
>
> Relatedly, the Toolserver is being slowly killed in favor of a controlled
> sandbox called "Wikimedia Labs" and all Wikimedia accounts are being
> unified (with forceable usurps/renames) to make it easier to track and
> control users across all Wikimedia wikis.
>
> It's very surprising that the Board has been so quiet about all of this.
> Generally, a few staff members (notably Philippe and his team) have tried
> to create "tiers" in which paid staff are above volunteers. Even the most
> trusted volunteers are no longer allowed to hold positions of trust within
> the Wikimedia community. This is very bad. Are there ways to address this?
>
> But to blame this on Gayle is kind of insane. It seems clear to me that
> she's being used as a pawn here. There are very few indications that this
> has anything to do with her, aside from a few log entries (from...
> Philippe) inexplicably pointing to her name. And the curt e-mail she sent
> out to affected users. Her involvement with the wiki would charitably be
> described as negligible.
>
> The director of _community advocacy_ (Philippe) is stripping nearly every
> community member of user rights. And yet there's still no provided
> rationale for the change in policy, other than it being based on a series
> of private discussions. Meanwhile, the home page of
> wikimediafoundation.org stresses how transparent the organization is.
>
> This is a pretty disappointing day. I'd be interested to hear what Gayle,
> Philippe, or the Board has to say.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr < [hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
> not political.
That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
lead with...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
K. Peachey, 11/05/2013 16:59:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr < [hidden email]> wrote:
>> ...
>> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
>> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
>> not political.
>
> That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
> smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
> lead with...
Yes, or all the sysops on foundationwiki with 0 edits. :)
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
Leslie Carr wrote:
>> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
>> sysadmins).
>
>Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
>
>As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
>restricted as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is
>technical and not political.
That was just sloppy wording on my part, apologies. Shell/root access has
been indeed been restricted to staff only. About four users have been
grandfathered in (Domas, Jens, River, Robert S.). I'll note that these
users have all contributed an enormous amount (for free!) to the Wikimedia
movement. They deserve only our appreciation for the volunteer work
they've done. And they serve as a model of what trusted volunteers can do.
Please don't suggest that this has anything to do with technical
decisions. Even a child can see that this is pure politics.
Leslie, do you agree with these policies that remove all non-staff from
positions of trust? Do you agree with creating tiers between staff and
everyone else?
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, K. Peachey < [hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr < [hidden email]> wrote:
>> ...
>> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
>> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
>> not political.
>
> That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
> smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
> lead with...
>
Actually it is the perfect example to lead with -- very few people
with shell access have root.
--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On 11 May 2013 14:46, Deryck Chan < [hidden email]> wrote:
> Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> by this at all.
Sad to say, this chimes with the Foundation's recent decision to
consult on changes to en.Wikipedia's method of notifying users that
they have a talk page message, and then to reject the overwhelming
consensus (to return the familiar orange bar, at least while other
options are discussed) of that consultation.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, MZMcBride < [hidden email]> wrote:
> Leslie Carr wrote:
>>> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
>>> sysadmins).
>>
>>Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
>>
>>As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
>>restricted as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is
>>technical and not political.
>
> That was just sloppy wording on my part, apologies. Shell/root access has
> been indeed been restricted to staff only. About four users have been
> grandfathered in (Domas, Jens, River, Robert S.). I'll note that these
> users have all contributed an enormous amount (for free!) to the Wikimedia
> movement. They deserve only our appreciation for the volunteer work
> they've done. And they serve as a model of what trusted volunteers can do.
> Please don't suggest that this has anything to do with technical
> decisions. Even a child can see that this is pure politics.
>
> Leslie, do you agree with these policies that remove all non-staff from
> positions of trust? Do you agree with creating tiers between staff and
> everyone else?
I have no opinion on all the other policies - my concern, expertise,
and really the only place I think my opinion even matters is for the
servers.
My opinion is that we should restrict any ssh access on the cluster to
those who have demonstrated that they both need it and can handle the
responsibility. If a volunteer has been very responsible in labs and
has a demonstratable need, I'd be fine with that. The reason that ops
staff get ssh access and root is that we (hopefully) during our
interview and references have demonstrated the ability to handle the
access responsibly, have a need, and on top of that have signed a big
stack of paperwork. But the more that we can do on labs without ever
touching production, the better off the stability of the cluster.
Also I believe that several analytics folks ( under admins::restricted
in admins.pp ) are not employees but do have some ssh access.
Leslie
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
|
|
On 05/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
> Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help out with
> running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost since the
> very start of the wiki.
Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
have been lacking, I think it's unwarranted to ascribe ill-intent to the
WMF staff. Perhaps you should wait for a response from them before you
declare what their wishes may be or what their reasons were?
-- Marc
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
|
1234
... 8
|
Locked
