Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[MZMcBride]

Milos Rancic wrote:
>My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional
>discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is
>wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees
>are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years.
>However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.
>
>[...]
>
>What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates
>particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the
>consequences of that dynamics.
>
>However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away
>from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well
>informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the
>basic concepts of Something.
>
>But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery
>of Something.

Poe's law dictates that this thread may or may not be taken at face value.
I'll choose the former. For many people, the Something is Lila. The buck
has to stop somewhere and as noted on Meta-Wiki and elsewhere, since her
accession to the Executive Director position, there has been a very high
level of shake-up at the Wikimedia Foundation. Some points of reference,
looking at the "Staff and contractors" page:

* As of 2014-01-01:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/94980

* As of 2015-01-01:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/100668

* As of 2016-01-01:
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/104377

No more Sue, no more Erik, no more many, many others. With the exception
of Geoff, we have a full turnover of the leadership/executive/whatever
team of the Wikimedia Foundation. This, in addition to two vacancies for
Chief Technology and Chief Financial Officers, along with a recent-ish
massive re-organization of the engineering team that ruffled feathers.

I like to remind people that Sue's start as Executive Director wasn't
exactly drama-free, but at no point in her tenure can I remember anyone,
inside or outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, suggesting holding a vote
of no confidence for her. The same hasn't been true of Lila, unfortunately.

I personally am still in the "wait and see" camp regarding the past two
years at the Wikimedia Foundation. But my personal views are less relevant
if public confidence among nearly everyone else is non-existent.

All that said, the underlying issue probably rests more with the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees itself than with its Executive Director.

We return, yet again, to this post by David Gerard:
. The Executive Director's role is
to implement and execute on the organization's goals. The organization's
goals are ultimately set by the Board of Trustees. Rather than tackling
the hard problem of what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to accomplish over
the next 1, 3, and 5 years, the Board has been instead concerning itself
with trying to maintain secrecy (lovingly branded as confidentiality) and
hierarchy, as it fumbles forward. Quite literally, the Wikimedia
(Foundation) Strategic Plan expired at the end of 2015 and the efforts to
write a new plan have been horribly haphazard, late, and lacking.

It's possible that the secrecy is hiding all of the work taking place in
the background, with people diligently studying the past five years,
associated goals, and figuring out what went wrong and what went right.
But the suspicion I have, as a somewhat-informed observer, is that the
high-level vision for what comes next for the Wikimedia Foundation is
missing. And that's what driving the low morale and high discomfort.

Perhaps ironically, this tumult and anxiety comes at a time when there's
so much to be excited about in the tech space. We have all kinds of new
tools: arbitrary Wikidata access, graphing/visualization libraries, more
powerful transclusion, Scribunto/Lua modules, VisualEditor, etc., along
with steady performance and operations improvements that have made the
sites faster and securer to load and more enjoyable to use. There are
reasons to be hopeful about the next few years, but also reasons to be
concerned. It's unclear what the precise ratio is currently.


Thyge wrote:
>It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
>
>(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA

Wrong wiki. ;-)   has the answer.

Asaf Bartov wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov 
>wrote:
>
>>NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
>>
>>(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the
>>other thread was the India Education Program[2])
>>
>
>(my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not Pine.  I should have
>looked it up.)

I kind of skimmed over "IEP" and half of me assumed it was related to
Individual Engagement Grants (IEG). Luckily Meta-Wiki again comes to the
rescue:  and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Greg Grossmeier]

> Eh I'd argue at this point we have a fairly good idea of what went on.
> 
> We know from the high employee turnover in some areas and the odd slip
> (well that and pretty direct complaints
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Transparency_Gap=15199687=15199605
> ) that, oh lets call it moral, isn't exactly rock solid at the WMF. The
> long term failure to fill the chief technology officer position probably
> doesn't help but there are reasons to suspect there are other issues.

Normally, the way to measure such morale (along with other things) is via
a survey to measure employee engagement [0].

You can see past engagement surveys on metawiki [1].


[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Employee_engagement_survey


Greg

-- 
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Database administration support (was Re: IRC office hours: Shared hosting)

[James Salsman]

If anyone is opposed to any of these things, please say so:

(1) adding database administration staff;

(2) not buying premium name-brand equipment or any equipment with e.g.
BIOS-to-JTAG back doors;

(3) opposing the TPP portions deleterious to movement interests;

(4) opposing the recently omnibus-enacted CISA and its Chinese counterpart;

(5) caching cited references at Foundation expense under volunteer review;

(6) re-evaluating the FTE cost of supporting the different varieties of
JavaScript on the different varieties of browsers on the different
varieties of platforms including O(N^2) structures like cross-browser
copy/paste. I think Visual Editor is sucking up the oxygen in Foundation
engineering at the moment, leaving the lengthy community backlog mostly in
the lurch; and

(7) funding the Foundation Engineering Community backlog, and lengthening
it from 10 items to 20.

I am also fascinated by the discussion about whether a Florida law
selection trumps an advertised election, but more interested in why Kevin
wrote that I don't understand the Foundation mission. I proposed years ago
that all Board meetings' open sessions should be live-streamed and
recorded. The Foundation does that for monthly meetings, why not the Board
too?

Regards,
Jim

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, James Salsman  wrote:

> On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff  > wrote:
>
>> If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space, you should take it
>> up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it
>> would be on-topic.
>>
>
> The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important anti-spam
> bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in recent years.
>
> I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and
> recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of sufficient,
> non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) equipment
> to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and similar projects
> such as Dispenser's reflinks cache.
>
> I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP provisions
> deleterious to our interests, and that this position be endorsed on the
> Public Policy list.
>
>
>> Then by definition it wouldn't be a third-party spam framework if WMF
>> was running it.
>
>
> I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their
> necessary service level requirements.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Theo10011]

Blind, impotent rage isn't helpful, neither are conjectures about the
abstract and nebulous nature of "something".

Let's try and remember, this is the same pattern as every other last time,
most people commenting here are in agreement, this was wrong or at the
least, this was handled poorly, and as usual, there is little to no
official communication from the other side. The pitchforks are ready, the
mob is assembled but the castle is empty, as usual.

I'm not sure why we keep perpetuating this us vs them mentality. Whether
its the action of singular staff member or the board or large decision by
the executive, the end result is always the same and I'm not sure we are
making any progress over the years. Just pushing this boulder up the hill
to watch it roll down every few months.

It is irrelevant what the disagreement was over with James. It is healthy
for consensus building, and if james' views or actions were so radical that
it required his immediate removal from the board - maybe that's what the
board needed in it entrenched ways, isolated from what is relevant. I am
not sure what the board is trying to maintain in their silence - beyond
this expectation to be professional and secretive and respect some sort of
group cohesion or collective authority - the legal department isn't helping
the situation either, peppering it with NDAs and gag order/requests.

The prepared and semi-prepared statements from the two board members aren't
really assuring or remotely revealing of anything. So I guess, we are left
to conjectures and conspiracies, extrapolating theories from morsels of
information. This has been a sad effort from the board and the
communication need for all parties involved.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
>
> No more Sue, no more Erik, no more many, many others. With the exception
> of Geoff, we have a full turnover of the leadership/executive/whatever
> team of the Wikimedia Foundation. This, in addition to two vacancies for
> Chief Technology and Chief Financial Officers, along with a recent-ish
> massive re-organization of the engineering team that ruffled feathers.
>

I think you are missing some of the context to support your narrative.
Sue's departure was the precondition for Lila's arrival and the new
leadership. Erik also, would be seen as an extension of the same executive
body that had to be refactored. You mention Geoff, but he was brought on to
replace someone else in that position(Mike), by Sue. I count several of the
same individuals still around - off the top of my head, Asaf, Siko, James,
Megan, Brion, Tomasz, and many more are still around. A large majority of
the WMF staff just never interacted with the community, and there were
always new staff members around, so it really doesn't feel all that
different. I would also argue the average employment length for a wfm
employee under Sue wasn't any better. There were a lot of staff changes
that happened quietly and frequently. There was also a clique that formed
that moved around titles - I see less of that now. The open positions on
staff aren't really evidence of anything in particular beyond a suitable
hire hasn't been located, given how important those two positions are I
would rather they err on the side of caution.

I assume bringing in a new executive and new leadership for an organisation
means change. In fact, I'd be more surprised if there weren't these changes
and Lila was working with the same people doing the exact same things as
Sue. Change in this case is evident, whether that change is for good or not
- remains to be seen - something we agree on.


> I like to remind people that Sue's start as Executive Director wasn't
> exactly drama-free, but at no point in her tenure can I remember anyone,
> inside or outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, suggesting holding a vote
> of no confidence for her. The same hasn't been true of Lila, unfortunately.
>

I would disagree, and I would also point out that there isn't a no
confidence vote for Lila now either. This is strictly about the board and
its conduct, this might be among the first few times the focus is shifting
to Lila without even her mention by any of the parties involved. For
historical accuracy, I would point you to the 2012 fundraising debate, the
superprotect debacle, and a lot of contentious discussion over the years
that questioned Sue's leadership on a regular basis.


It's possible that the secrecy is hiding all of the work taking place in
> the background, with people diligently studying the past five years,
> associated goals, and figuring out what went wrong and what went right.
> But the suspicion I have, as a somewhat-informed observer, is that the
> high-level vision for what comes next for the Wikimedia Foundation is
> missing. And that's what driving the low morale and high discomfort.
>

As another somewhat-informed observer, I would assure you that a high-level
vision for what comes next for WMF was ALWAYS missing. Just 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Pine W]

I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration.
But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I
would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky
circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has
been given in public, the *possible* official misconduct with regards to
improper withholding of financial information from James, the community's
desire for significantly more transparency and openness from the Board, and
the credibility of the Board's leadership.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Database administration support (was Re: IRC office hours: Shared hosting)

[Peter Southwood]

No idea since I have no idea what most of those things are. You could try 
making it more clear, for starts by using the full expressions rather than the 
abbreviations. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Salsman
Sent: Sunday, 03 January 2016 11:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Database administration support (was Re: IRC office 
hours: Shared hosting)

If anyone is opposed to any of these things, please say so:

(1) adding database administration staff;

(2) not buying premium name-brand equipment or any equipment with e.g.
BIOS-to-JTAG back doors;

(3) opposing the TPP portions deleterious to movement interests;

(4) opposing the recently omnibus-enacted CISA and its Chinese counterpart;

(5) caching cited references at Foundation expense under volunteer review;

(6) re-evaluating the FTE cost of supporting the different varieties of 
JavaScript on the different varieties of browsers on the different varieties of 
platforms including O(N^2) structures like cross-browser copy/paste. I think 
Visual Editor is sucking up the oxygen in Foundation engineering at the moment, 
leaving the lengthy community backlog mostly in the lurch; and

(7) funding the Foundation Engineering Community backlog, and lengthening it 
from 10 items to 20.

I am also fascinated by the discussion about whether a Florida law selection 
trumps an advertised election, but more interested in why Kevin wrote that I 
don't understand the Foundation mission. I proposed years ago that all Board 
meetings' open sessions should be live-streamed and recorded. The Foundation 
does that for monthly meetings, why not the Board too?

Regards,
Jim

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, James Salsman  wrote:

> On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff  > wrote:
>
>> If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space, you should take it 
>> up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it 
>> would be on-topic.
>>
>
> The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important 
> anti-spam bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in 
> recent years.
>
> I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and 
> recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of 
> sufficient, non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) 
> equipment to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and 
> similar projects such as Dispenser's reflinks cache.
>
> I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP 
> provisions deleterious to our interests, and that this position be 
> endorsed on the Public Policy list.
>
>
>> Then by definition it wouldn't be a third-party spam framework if WMF 
>> was running it.
>
>
> I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their 
> necessary service level requirements.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11319 - Release Date: 01/04/16


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Milos Rancic]

On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:
>
> Something is covered in NDAs.

I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And they
weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside of
the movement.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Pine W]

John: I hope we can have an open discussion. (: I feel that NDAs may be
making bad situations worse. There are good reasons to keep some things
confidential, but I think that more openness and transparency would be
helpful in regards to the WMF board in particular.

Milos: thank you. Yesterday I wrote a long list of areas in which there are
problems and weaknesses throughout the Wikimedia universe. The length of
the list was so depressing that I decided to keep it to myself. In a way,
I'm glad that someone is thinking along similar lines. I'm about to depart
Wikimedia-l for several hours; I'll leave with these thoughts:

1. Lila is talking about a strategy update:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29=4422696=15206508=15196612
My confidence in WMF-led strategy processes is weak at this moment in time,
although I hope for the best. Perhaps we can all use this as an opportunity
to address Something. Perhaps parallel to this, we in the community should
have our own discussion about Something and what we would like for our own
strategy.

2. WikiQuote of the day:

"The world is indeed full of peril,
and in it there are many dark places;
but still there is much that is fair,
and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief,
it grows perhaps the greater."

-- J. R. R. Tolkien, in "The Fellowship of the Ring"

To brighter days,

Pine


On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:56 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> Something is covered in NDAs.
>
> --
> John
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Something

[Milos Rancic]

We should start talking about Something.

Something is the raising issue of our movement. Its properties are not
yet known, but all of us feel the consequences of Something.

To tackle the problem, we should define it, first. Yes, we know it's
called Something, but besides the name, we know just a little bit
more. So, I ask you to help me define Something. Crowdsourcing is the
term defined thanks to our movement and I am sure we are capable to do
so. All of us have a little piece of knowledge about Something and we
could compile those pieces to create a clear picture.

My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional
discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is
wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees
are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years.
However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.

I am not able to understand what's the difference between the Time of
Something (ToS, not to be confused with TOS, Star Trek, The Original
Series) and the Time before Something (TbS, not to be confused with
tbs, ISO 639-3 code for Tanguat language).

I don't see any particular difference, except I think Board is not
making mistakes it made previously. (To be fair, it's not that big
achievement, as "mistakes" are not a final set.)

What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates
particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the
consequences of that dynamics.

However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away
from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well
informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the
basic concepts of Something.

But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery
of Something.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Something is covered in NDAs.

--
John
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

[billinghurst]

Kevin,


==Re opinion==

I didn't mention anyone in particular, I was asking for people to
reflect on their contributions, and that more people contributing here
is better than the same people going around again. [I would prefer the
mature approach that each author review their own posts and honestly
reach their own conclusion, not to be told by others.]

Some respond as if their contributions are of primacy and immediacy,
and when that is done multiple times then it could be said to be
without consideration for other opinions.

Some bring in their gloom with the Foundation, or a part of their
history, and try to link that to some catastrophe/action/conspiracy,
which is all very shallow, in my opinion, and not helpful to the
discourse for this complex matter.

I gave my opinion on what I was seeing in the list, and hoped that it
was informative to such reflections.  I would also think that numbers
of us have experience in non-profits around the world, though
indubitably not of the size and complexity. That said, whomever has
has had to deal with the principles of privacy, confidentiality,
by-laws, policies, fiduciary duties and it seems to me that these are
being used here as a shield to answering questions, so let us get
clarity on these statements. [1]

==My PoV==

We all wish for lots of things, but most importantly I think that we
all wish for the Board to note our disquiet of their operational
processes and outcomes. I wish to hear the answers of the Board,
though I will note that means their meeting in some form, and getting
through their official processes and that all takes time.  I would
much rather here the right statements, rather than quick or
whitewashed statements. To me, speed of resolution comes second to the
right resolution.

To me what is clearly needed here is a fulsome statement from the
Chairman to acknowledge the disquiet and to make a commitment to
review their process, their needs and this outcome.  I see that his
previous statement as more troubling than enlightening.

To me (as an outsider observing only) the Board has taken on an issue
1) without understanding the consequences of the outcome
2) without a plan for what they were going to do if the resolution was
successful
3) thinking that their historic methodology is unquestionably the right method
4) that disruptive technology (aka James) was successful in his
candidacy due to exactly what they were railing against; and one would
think that our Board should clearly be attuned to community's messages
and aware of disruptive ideology.

To me, at face value, this is an appalling fail in terms of risk
management, and if nothing else our Board should be practising good
risk management. That fail sets off alarm bells for me. Now I am
wishing to understand whether I just don't have enough information, or
whether we have elements of either risk blindness or risk denial, and
the only means to understand that is clarity from the Board.

The Board's inability to respond in a professional manner (one voice:
a clear and timely voice)  to this revolt from their informed and
experienced user base, speaks to one or more of: insufficient skills;
insufficient planning; unsuitable systems;, wrong processes; or
incompetent people.

And please don't start me on this call for involvement of the Comms
team and the right messaging. I have met them and hold them in great
regard, this, however, is not about their massaging a determination of
the Board. In plain man speak "you cannot shine a turd!"

Now having spoken, I will be quiet and go back to reading and
contemplating of (most) others' emails (and editing).

Regards, Billinghurst
[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patricio.lorente#Re_your_statement_to_Wikimedia-L_2015-12-31

>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Kevin Gorman 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:19:33 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated
> Billing -
>
> I hope some of my earlier contributions were, well, contributions, since I
> do have fairly extensive training in the governance requirements of
> CA-based non-profits - which certainly aren't Florida-based nonprofits, but
> definitely share some similarities.  One of the things that has concerned
> me is the public words of board members have pretty much entirely stressed
> a hope to move past this smoothly, rather than a desire to instigate even
> the sort of external review that the IEP resulted in.  One thing that would
> make me pretty much shut up about the matter instantly is if, preferably
> the BoT as a whole, but even an individual board member, voiced a strong
> opinion/desire/committment to try to ensure that events that have
> transpired so far are subject to an outside review by a group without
> previous strong connections to the WMF that has a strong familiarity with
> Florida NPO governance, and is as transparent as possible.
>
> Best,
> KG
>
> On 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So there is another shitstorm.. I experience it as increasingly militant
and unpleasant and irrelevant for me, GMAIL has the option to mute and the
other threat has already been muted.  So a new thread was opened with a
call to reduce the noise level..

From my perspective, the board does what the board does. There were a lot
of people who voted new people in because ... The composition of the board
is very different and it shows. The board was really consistent and a new
board has to grow up.But to be realistic, it does not matter too much. It
will remain business as usual

What people have to appreciate is that with business as usual, change comes
at best at a "glacial" speed. It does not matter what the quality of
arguments is, change is not accepted and the argument used most often is
"the community thinks otherwise". Community is conservative, is set in its
ways, arguments do not matter and contrary opinions are easily dismissed as
negative and irrelevant.

When enough people work each other up, it easily becomes a mob. With mobs
there is no room for the rational consideration of arguments. So I will
likely mute this thread as well.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 3 January 2016 at 12:54, billinghurst  wrote:

> Kevin,
>
>
> ==Re opinion==
>
> I didn't mention anyone in particular, I was asking for people to
> reflect on their contributions, and that more people contributing here
> is better than the same people going around again. [I would prefer the
> mature approach that each author review their own posts and honestly
> reach their own conclusion, not to be told by others.]
>
> Some respond as if their contributions are of primacy and immediacy,
> and when that is done multiple times then it could be said to be
> without consideration for other opinions.
>
> Some bring in their gloom with the Foundation, or a part of their
> history, and try to link that to some catastrophe/action/conspiracy,
> which is all very shallow, in my opinion, and not helpful to the
> discourse for this complex matter.
>
> I gave my opinion on what I was seeing in the list, and hoped that it
> was informative to such reflections.  I would also think that numbers
> of us have experience in non-profits around the world, though
> indubitably not of the size and complexity. That said, whomever has
> has had to deal with the principles of privacy, confidentiality,
> by-laws, policies, fiduciary duties and it seems to me that these are
> being used here as a shield to answering questions, so let us get
> clarity on these statements. [1]
>
> ==My PoV==
>
> We all wish for lots of things, but most importantly I think that we
> all wish for the Board to note our disquiet of their operational
> processes and outcomes. I wish to hear the answers of the Board,
> though I will note that means their meeting in some form, and getting
> through their official processes and that all takes time.  I would
> much rather here the right statements, rather than quick or
> whitewashed statements. To me, speed of resolution comes second to the
> right resolution.
>
> To me what is clearly needed here is a fulsome statement from the
> Chairman to acknowledge the disquiet and to make a commitment to
> review their process, their needs and this outcome.  I see that his
> previous statement as more troubling than enlightening.
>
> To me (as an outsider observing only) the Board has taken on an issue
> 1) without understanding the consequences of the outcome
> 2) without a plan for what they were going to do if the resolution was
> successful
> 3) thinking that their historic methodology is unquestionably the right
> method
> 4) that disruptive technology (aka James) was successful in his
> candidacy due to exactly what they were railing against; and one would
> think that our Board should clearly be attuned to community's messages
> and aware of disruptive ideology.
>
> To me, at face value, this is an appalling fail in terms of risk
> management, and if nothing else our Board should be practising good
> risk management. That fail sets off alarm bells for me. Now I am
> wishing to understand whether I just don't have enough information, or
> whether we have elements of either risk blindness or risk denial, and
> the only means to understand that is clarity from the Board.
>
> The Board's inability to respond in a professional manner (one voice:
> a clear and timely voice)  to this revolt from their informed and
> experienced user base, speaks to one or more of: insufficient skills;
> insufficient planning; unsuitable systems;, wrong processes; or
> incompetent people.
>
> And please don't start me on this call for involvement of the Comms
> team and the right messaging. I have met them and hold them in great
> regard, this, however, is not about their massaging a determination of
> the Board. In plain man speak "you cannot shine a turd!"
>
> Now having spoken, I will be quiet and go back to reading and
> contemplating of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Thyge]

It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA

Thyge

2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic :

> On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:
> >
> > Something is covered in NDAs.
>
> I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And they
> weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside of
> the movement.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Asaf Bartov]

NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]

(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the
other thread was the India Education Program[2])

   A.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Independent_Report_from_Tory_Read

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Thyge  wrote:

> It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
>
> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA
>
> Thyge
>
> 2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic :
>
> > On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Something is covered in NDAs.
> >
> > I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And
> they
> > weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside
> of
> > the movement.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Pharos]

Let us have our movement new year's resolution be for an acronym-free 2016!

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
>
> (and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the
> other thread was the India Education Program[2])
>
>A.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
>
> [2]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Independent_Report_from_Tory_Read
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Thyge  wrote:
>
> > It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
> >
> > (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA
> >
> > Thyge
> >
> > 2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic :
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Something is covered in NDAs.
> > >
> > > I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And
> > they
> > > weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position
> inside
> > of
> > > the movement.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

[Asaf Bartov]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
>
> (and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the
> other thread was the India Education Program[2])
>

(my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not Pine.  I should have
looked it up.)

   A.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,