Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Pine W]

Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information is
cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds
with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides
cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will prompt
WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency,
openness, and values alignment.

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] 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Thanks for sharing, you have been working late on Friday night!

Have a nice weekend,

Ad
Op 27 feb. 2016 07:25 schreef "Patrick Earley" :

> Hello all,
>
> A summary report of the first stage of community consultation for the 2016
> Wikimedia Foundation strategy process has uploaded to Commons in PDF
> format.[1]
>
> This is in preparation for the second stage of consultation, which will
> begin on Meta next Friday, March 4.  We will update when that process is
> ready to go.
>
> [1]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Strategic_Approaches_Report.pdf
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Senior Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> (1) 415 975 1874
> ___
> 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] 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

[Patrick Earley]

Hello all,

A summary report of the first stage of community consultation for the 2016
Wikimedia Foundation strategy process has uploaded to Commons in PDF
format.[1]

This is in preparation for the second stage of consultation, which will
begin on Meta next Friday, March 4.  We will update when that process is
ready to go.

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Strategic_Approaches_Report.pdf

Best regards,



-- 
Patrick Earley
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
pear...@wikimedia.org
(1) 415 975 1874
___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Peter Southwood]

On the surface it looks like an excellent idea.
Should be considered seriously.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 12:16 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Hoi,
If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in 
refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often well 
educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them 
something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents the 
onset of a lot of mental health issues.

Obviously this is not easy but we do not pay them directly but still make a 
real difference.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 26 February 2016 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying 
> them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place 
> to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs 
> work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
>
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation 
> > altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> We're
> > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting
> itself
> > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve 
> > this
> by
> > while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >
> > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary 
> > people freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can 
> > therefore hope
> to
> > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on 
> > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information 
> > that other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to 
> > compromise.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <
> pute...@mccme.ru>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the 
> > > > debates
> with
> > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they 
> > > > were
> > > paid
> > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I 
> > > > give up,
> > > and I
> > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I 
> > > > also
> had
> > > very
> > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people 
> > > > whose
> only
> > > goal
> > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, 
> > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if 
> > > > somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, 
> > > > and the
> quality
> > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user 
> > > > who is
> > paid
> > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and 
> > > > have
> to
> > > do
> > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more
> persistent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been 
> > > regarded as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit 
> > > articles about the institution that employs them.
> > >
> > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> > because
> > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid 
> > > editor
> > being
> > > more persistent).
> > >
> > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that 
> > > want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve 
> > > all the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI 
> > > aspect. So my
> > thinking
> > > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> > >
> > > Sarah​
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > >  > > e>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Goodman
> >
> > DGG at the enWP
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[George Herbert]

On the Vision thing -

There is a leadership vision, and an organizational/movement vision.

The leader should articulate theirs.  The organizational one needs to come from 
everyone but would likely be articulated by the ED after that process.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
>> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
>> the ED/Management.
> 
> I think you're misinterpreting.
> 
> The agree/disagree statement was:
> "Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
> motivates me"  (7% agree)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes#WMF_staff_morale
> 
> See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
> "The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
> so."
> 
> So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
> ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.
> 
> This is getting off topic, however.
> 
> The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
> agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
> collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency is
> needed in an ED.
> 
> 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, 
> 

___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Andreescu]

I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing.  Until I
thought about implementation details.  Inevitably, there would have to be
some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to
get healthcare for millions of users.  So then, even worse, if someone fell
under the active threshold, I assume health care would be taken away...  So
then we'd probably have to deal with awful situations like "Wikipedia cuts
health benefits for editor unable to edit due to health problems".

I don't like poking my head into these dark hypotheticals, but I wanted to
share that the situation is more complicated than at least I thought.

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Florence Devouard  wrote:

> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
>>> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
>>> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
>>> need
>>> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
>>> the
>>> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
>>> involved
>>> in paid editing.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​Hi Pete,
>>>
>>
>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>> could help unpaid editors.
>>
>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>> no
>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>> exactly the opposite.)
>>
>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>> work,
>> but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
>> for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
>> The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
>> core
>> policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
>> as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
>> COI.
>>
>> I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
>> way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
>> be
>> something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
>> experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
>>
>> Sarah
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>>
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>
> Flo
>
>
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Oliver Keyes]

I would also like that. To be perfectly honest the NDAs are vague
enough (deliberately) that it makes things very hard for anyone
outside of counsel to really determine what might be a problem.

From my perspective: so, as well as a prohibition on sharing anything
we learn exclusively through our work without authorisation, my
contract also features a clause that prohibits me from saying anything
that might defame the Foundation, its trustees, or its officers. Quite
how this is defined has never been made clear to employees, which
makes transparency in an era of obscurity, or transparency in an era
where there are a lot of sensitive, nuanced things to talk about,
difficult.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 PM, George Herbert
 wrote:
>
> It would be a good thing if the Board and current or expected interim ED 
> loosened up confidentiality on the employees.
>
> It helps internal morale and external confidence in reforms.
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>> I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and
>>> staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks
>>> we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I
>>> guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread
>>> professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least
>>> some staff.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR,
>>> if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized*
>>> comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to
>>> inform the discussions about the future.
>>
>> No, he's not. Don't get me wrong, Brion's help is TREMENDOUSLY
>> valuable and appreciated. But please recognise that you only see
>> things from the outside. Your understanding of what is going on,
>> absent internal discussions, is likely to be somewhat distorted. Brion
>> is one of the more preeminent volunteers for emotional support but he
>> is not acting without HR also acting.
>>
>>>
>>> I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting
>>> about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space
>>> while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial
>>> for WMF in the rebuilding phase.
>>
>> The WMF's rebuilding is ultimately WMF-centric.
>>
>> There are elements with movement-wide components; reform of the board
>> of trustees, which is also supported by a lot of staff, is a good
>> example. But much of it is internal, private, and only fully
>> understood with an NDA. It's why so many people have been able to
>> gut-punch employees over the last few months: because there are a lot
>> of things where, even anonymised, we cannot say anything.
>>
>> Given that I would prefer not to risk compromising the healing with
>> publicly-shared transcripts, even anonymised ones. This is not to say
>> that public feedback and review and transparency isn't welcome and
>> needed: it is. Merely that this should not come from the commentary of
>> individual meetings.
>>
>>>
>>> Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.
>>>
>>> If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.
>>
>> We already have one, and have for months.
>>
>>>
>>> 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, 
>>> 
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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] I am going to San Francisco

[George Herbert]

It would be a good thing if the Board and current or expected interim ED 
loosened up confidentiality on the employees.

It helps internal morale and external confidence in reforms.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and
>> staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks
>> we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I
>> guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread
>> professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least
>> some staff.
>> 
>> I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR,
>> if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized*
>> comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to
>> inform the discussions about the future.
> 
> No, he's not. Don't get me wrong, Brion's help is TREMENDOUSLY
> valuable and appreciated. But please recognise that you only see
> things from the outside. Your understanding of what is going on,
> absent internal discussions, is likely to be somewhat distorted. Brion
> is one of the more preeminent volunteers for emotional support but he
> is not acting without HR also acting.
> 
>> 
>> I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting
>> about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space
>> while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial
>> for WMF in the rebuilding phase.
> 
> The WMF's rebuilding is ultimately WMF-centric.
> 
> There are elements with movement-wide components; reform of the board
> of trustees, which is also supported by a lot of staff, is a good
> example. But much of it is internal, private, and only fully
> understood with an NDA. It's why so many people have been able to
> gut-punch employees over the last few months: because there are a lot
> of things where, even anonymised, we cannot say anything.
> 
> Given that I would prefer not to risk compromising the healing with
> publicly-shared transcripts, even anonymised ones. This is not to say
> that public feedback and review and transparency isn't welcome and
> needed: it is. Merely that this should not come from the commentary of
> individual meetings.
> 
>> 
>> Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.
>> 
>> If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.
> 
> We already have one, and have for months.
> 
>> 
>> 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, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> 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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Oliver Keyes]

+1 to Keegan. I am glad you have spoken to staffers, Pete. I promise I
can identify at least 300 other people that fall into that category
too.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Keegan Peterzell
 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>> Still, my list is very much influenced by what I
>> have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like
>> your seat is getting cold without you. :)
>>
>
> My seat without me in it would be the very definition of it getting cold
> without me in it, not to be glib. Your presumptions are starting to be
> offensive.
>
> I am a person. I am a Wikimedian on my own,[0] apart from my role in my
> signature line.
>
> I think what we need to *first* do is stop pigeonholing individuals, and
> then presuming to know their opinions based on said hole placement, which
> was the point of my initial email: do not presume to know what those who
> are not speaking right now are thinking, and wait to hear from them. But I
> guess you're missing the point.
>
> I know you're going to say that's not what you're intending to do, but it's
> exactly what you're saying.
>
> Slow down. There are plenty of leaders with thoughts in this movement, give
> everyone space.
>
> 0.
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Keegan=en.wikipedia.org=en
>
> --
> Keegan Peterzell
> Community Liaison, Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Oliver Keyes]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and
> staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks
> we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I
> guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread
> professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least
> some staff.
>
> I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR,
> if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized*
> comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to
> inform the discussions about the future.

No, he's not. Don't get me wrong, Brion's help is TREMENDOUSLY
valuable and appreciated. But please recognise that you only see
things from the outside. Your understanding of what is going on,
absent internal discussions, is likely to be somewhat distorted. Brion
is one of the more preeminent volunteers for emotional support but he
is not acting without HR also acting.

>
> I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting
> about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space
> while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial
> for WMF in the rebuilding phase.

The WMF's rebuilding is ultimately WMF-centric.

There are elements with movement-wide components; reform of the board
of trustees, which is also supported by a lot of staff, is a good
example. But much of it is internal, private, and only fully
understood with an NDA. It's why so many people have been able to
gut-punch employees over the last few months: because there are a lot
of things where, even anonymised, we cannot say anything.

Given that I would prefer not to risk compromising the healing with
publicly-shared transcripts, even anonymised ones. This is not to say
that public feedback and review and transparency isn't welcome and
needed: it is. Merely that this should not come from the commentary of
individual meetings.

>
> Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.
>
> If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.

We already have one, and have for months.

>
> 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, 
> 

___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[George Herbert]

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:17 PM, Risker  wrote:
> 
> No, I think we've actually done a very superficial identification of the
> problems.  Some of them are so obvious that they are overwhelming the less
> obvious but equally serious issues.
> 
> Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. 40% of the board
> has been seated for less than a year, and another seat is empty and
> awaiting someone who probably won't have been a WMF board member before.
> Two more seats are currently being contested.  It is entirely conceivable
> that by the time we get to Wikimania we will only have two people with more
> than 14 months' experience on the board.  No, "new board" isn't an issue,
> despite how many people keep saying it is; transfer of information at the
> hand-off last Wikimania probably was an issue, and new board member
> orientation definitely was (and is).  The issues with the appointment of
> one of the "board selected" members recently was at least partly because,
> as I understand it, there has never been a written process for how to vet
> potential board members for most of the things we all assumed board members
> were screened for. WHile I'll be the first to admit I rolled my eyes too,
> I'm hard-pressed to openly condemn a bunch of people who'd never done a
> task before for not getting it perfectly right.  (Note that even the WMF
> staffer assigned to assist in the vetting, Boryana Dineva, had been an
> employee for only a few days when handed the assignment, knowing almost
> nothing about the community, the organization, the board, or even what to
> look for when vetting a potential board member.)
> 
> So, "let's restructure the board" is a wish-list item. The structure of the
> board wasn't a root cause.  The processes of the board, including the
> orientation process, and the lack of documentation or clarity of the
> process, were much closer to root causes here.
> 
> That's just one example.
> 
> Risker/Anne

I have not been on the WMF board, and it (collectively, the members) is being 
fairly opaque about its activities and processes.

That said, it is not clear to me that it was doing what the board of trustees 
of an organization is required to do (legally, morally, organizationally), and 
I am not at all comfortable having to say that.

At the beginning of the week, my TLDR message ended with challenging the board 
to consider if they were up for the job.

It is evident that at least at times it needs to really be a board and not just 
a group of advisors.  It needs to challenge and find out not just be told.  It 
has a fiduciary duty to keep the organization on sound footing.  That means 
something.

That means standing up to each other, to broken process, to management, even to 
the movement.  It's the Board.

I don't know that anyone isn't able to do that, but everyone should be asking.  
And if anyone can't or won't they're not doing the job.

I am not comfortable asking that, but it needs to be asked.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone


___
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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Comet styles]

What kind of ED would you like to see?

* Someone who knows how the wiki works or atleast has basic knowledge
on how to "edit" wikis.

* Someone who wants to work on "building" the encyclopaedia, not the
bureaucratic side which our last ED was more focused on.

* Someone willing to work on improving the wiki by working on ways of
creating and increasing our contributor base, we are seriously lacking
in that sector..

* Someone who is so transparent that we could see right through them,
secrecy is what got us in this mess in the first place.

* Someone willing to ensure that the board, the staff and the
community work in 'unison' instead of the former 2 dictating their
policies, views and choices onto the latter.

* Someone willing to take the hard stance and do what's right by the
community instead of allowing the Board and other staff members to
dictate the job for them..

* Someone who puts the Community first ALWAYS. (we do not want another
 issue like 'super-protect' ever again)


That is what I would like our ED to be ...we need an "Executive
DIRECTor", not an "Executive FOLLOWer"

On 2/27/16, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
> 
>> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
>> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
>> the ED/Management.
>
> I think you're misinterpreting.
>
> The agree/disagree statement was:
> "Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
> motivates me"  (7% agree)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes#WMF_staff_morale
>
> See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
> "The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
> so."
>
> So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
> ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.
>
> This is getting off topic, however.
>
> The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
> agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
> collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency is
> needed in an ED.
>
> 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,
> 


-- 
Cometstyles

___
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

[Comet styles]

Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can
see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened
back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let
it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.The
community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't
really that good, including some recently but James has been an
exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community
TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..

It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his
place even before the fire died down..so yes, even if the current
members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community  DO...thats
all that matters.

On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
> wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
>
> It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
> path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
> trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
> trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
> role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively and
> aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
> talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption, had
> a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid feeling
> that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.
>
> James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
> otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees that
> would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
> trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times, and
> sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that at
> another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't have
> time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
> made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was acting
> as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
> the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
> Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
> *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
> first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
> James.
>
> 
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
>> Hi all -
>>
>> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
>> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
>> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and
>> to
>> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
>> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
>> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
>> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
>> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
>> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
>>
>> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
>> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if
>> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
>> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
>> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to
>> him,
>> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
>>
>> 
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
> ___
> 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,
> 


-- 
Cometstyles

___
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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Comet styles]

Lawrence Lessig is an excellent suggestion, probably would be my
Candidate A for the job if he wasn't 'besties' with Jimmy Wales..we
have already had issues with the  staff and board working together in
secrecy without the community's knowledge, we should not have to go
through it again.. I agree with Lodewijk, we should not be discussing
this BUT the WMF has a habit of selecting the worst candidates for the
job on both the board and the staff without the community's input or
knowledge, so surely if this is the only way the community can gets
its input, then so be it

On 2/27/16, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks.  My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone.  In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
>
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
>> While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to
>> discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
>>
>> To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude
>> by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
>> people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
>> possibly
>> be a slap in the face of someone you like.
>>
>> If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
>> board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
>> Raul
>> > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
>> > current role.
>> >
>> > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
>> > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
>> > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
>> > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
>> > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
>> > direction-determining force.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
>> > >
>> > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
>> > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
>> > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
>> > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
>> > > decision.
>> > >
>> > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
>> > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
>> > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
>> > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
>> > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
>> > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
>> > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
>> > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
>> > > informed.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
>> dandree...@wikimedia.org
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
>> > > > brand
>> > of
>> > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
>> > position
>> > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
>> > > >
>> > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
>> > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
>> start
>> > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
>> > with a
>> > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
>> > > >
>> > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
>> It
>> > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
>> and
>> > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
>> > > >
>> > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and
>> we
>> > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
>> is
>> > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
>> > > >
>> > > >   Original Message
>> > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
>> > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
>> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > > > Subject: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Still, my list is very much influenced by what I
> have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like
> your seat is getting cold without you. :)
>

My seat without me in it would be the very definition of it getting cold
without me in it, not to be glib. Your presumptions are starting to be
offensive.

I am a person. I am a Wikimedian on my own,[0] apart from my role in my
signature line.

I think what we need to *first* do is stop pigeonholing individuals, and
then presuming to know their opinions based on said hole placement, which
was the point of my initial email: do not presume to know what those who
are not speaking right now are thinking, and wait to hear from them. But I
guess you're missing the point.

I know you're going to say that's not what you're intending to do, but it's
exactly what you're saying.

Slow down. There are plenty of leaders with thoughts in this movement, give
everyone space.

0.
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Keegan=en.wikipedia.org=en

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Anders Wennersten]

Or perhaps a key problem is the recruitment process to the Board .

Fort the community elected seats, wanted criteria were identified by the 
Board and clearly communicated (non-western, non English speakers) but 
was in practice ignores by the voters and where 3 out of the five 
getting most votes were US-based. This could be fixed with a more active 
election committee, who could either give a go/nogo for candidates or 
any way give a clear feedback of the nominated candidates in how well 
they fit into.


For the chapters based seats the original intention was to enable 
excellent candidates to turn up if less well known by the community in 
general. In practice though the process favours the well known 
candidates. Also here a more active election committee could make a 
difference.


Anders












Den 2016-02-27 kl. 03:17, skrev Risker:

No, I think we've actually done a very superficial identification of the
problems.  Some of them are so obvious that they are overwhelming the less
obvious but equally serious issues.

Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. 40% of the board
has been seated for less than a year, and another seat is empty and
awaiting someone who probably won't have been a WMF board member before.
Two more seats are currently being contested.  It is entirely conceivable
that by the time we get to Wikimania we will only have two people with more
than 14 months' experience on the board.  No, "new board" isn't an issue,
despite how many people keep saying it is; transfer of information at the
hand-off last Wikimania probably was an issue, and new board member
orientation definitely was (and is).  The issues with the appointment of
one of the "board selected" members recently was at least partly because,
as I understand it, there has never been a written process for how to vet
potential board members for most of the things we all assumed board members
were screened for. WHile I'll be the first to admit I rolled my eyes too,
I'm hard-pressed to openly condemn a bunch of people who'd never done a
task before for not getting it perfectly right.  (Note that even the WMF
staffer assigned to assist in the vetting, Boryana Dineva, had been an
employee for only a few days when handed the assignment, knowing almost
nothing about the community, the organization, the board, or even what to
look for when vetting a potential board member.)

So, "let's restructure the board" is a wish-list item. The structure of the
board wasn't a root cause.  The processes of the board, including the
orientation process, and the lack of documentation or clarity of the
process, were much closer to root causes here.

That's just one example.

Risker/Anne



On 26 February 2016 at 21:04, Pete Forsyth  wrote:


Risker and Brion:

I very much agree with the principles you're stating, and am coming to
realize I should have framed my message differently. There has actually
been quite a lot of discussion of what the problems are, and I am basing my
suggestions on the ones that I've personally seen a lot of attention to.
Namely (as I stated, in part, above):
* It might take a very long time to get a new ED, which would be bad
* We might get an ED who does not effectively absorb information and values
from staff and community
* Appointing an interim ED in a hurry (one month) might not bring us
somebody who's best for the long term
* Funders (both institutions and individuals) might be skeptical about
giving, due to recent issues
* On Point #6, a great deal of work has already been done on identifying
problems here, and I look forward to seeing more synthesis etc. on wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap

There is, I agree, much more work to be done in identifying and clarifying
further problems we should be looking to address. But from what I've read
and heard, there seems to be some pretty strong consensus around the
problems I've identified above; and ideally, I would have stated that out
in an intro to my message. If there is *disagreement* on those issues, I
think it would be good to hear it.

Along with you, I welcome further deliberation of what the problems are
that should be solved, and if I suggested otherwise I regret giving that
impression.

I strongly hope and believe, though, that the Board is already working to
address the subset of rather obvious problems that is at least similar to
what I listed above. Those problems need to be addressed quickly, and I
believe it's best if various stakeholders in the Wikimedia vision -- not
just the 9 members of the Board -- weigh in on the best way to address
them. If there is a consensus that we shouldn't do that here in public, I
can take it off this list; but speaking for myself, I'd like to see some
public deliberation and consensus-building about more immediate steps,
rather than a bunch of individual efforts to lobby the Board.

I don't intend any of this to be a total solution. Regarding 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue.


Risker, perhaps you missed this in my original message -- I did not express
that we need a new board.

Item #3 on my list was entirely under the heading:

"The Board should set up the next long-term ED for success"

I do not have strong opinions about whether or not substantial changes to
the board composition are in order. (Apparently you do.) But I DO think the
Board should be asking itself that question, alongside the other items (3a
through 3d).

That is what I suggested. Nothing more.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Risker]

No, I think we've actually done a very superficial identification of the
problems.  Some of them are so obvious that they are overwhelming the less
obvious but equally serious issues.

Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. 40% of the board
has been seated for less than a year, and another seat is empty and
awaiting someone who probably won't have been a WMF board member before.
Two more seats are currently being contested.  It is entirely conceivable
that by the time we get to Wikimania we will only have two people with more
than 14 months' experience on the board.  No, "new board" isn't an issue,
despite how many people keep saying it is; transfer of information at the
hand-off last Wikimania probably was an issue, and new board member
orientation definitely was (and is).  The issues with the appointment of
one of the "board selected" members recently was at least partly because,
as I understand it, there has never been a written process for how to vet
potential board members for most of the things we all assumed board members
were screened for. WHile I'll be the first to admit I rolled my eyes too,
I'm hard-pressed to openly condemn a bunch of people who'd never done a
task before for not getting it perfectly right.  (Note that even the WMF
staffer assigned to assist in the vetting, Boryana Dineva, had been an
employee for only a few days when handed the assignment, knowing almost
nothing about the community, the organization, the board, or even what to
look for when vetting a potential board member.)

So, "let's restructure the board" is a wish-list item. The structure of the
board wasn't a root cause.  The processes of the board, including the
orientation process, and the lack of documentation or clarity of the
process, were much closer to root causes here.

That's just one example.

Risker/Anne



On 26 February 2016 at 21:04, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Risker and Brion:
>
> I very much agree with the principles you're stating, and am coming to
> realize I should have framed my message differently. There has actually
> been quite a lot of discussion of what the problems are, and I am basing my
> suggestions on the ones that I've personally seen a lot of attention to.
> Namely (as I stated, in part, above):
> * It might take a very long time to get a new ED, which would be bad
> * We might get an ED who does not effectively absorb information and values
> from staff and community
> * Appointing an interim ED in a hurry (one month) might not bring us
> somebody who's best for the long term
> * Funders (both institutions and individuals) might be skeptical about
> giving, due to recent issues
> * On Point #6, a great deal of work has already been done on identifying
> problems here, and I look forward to seeing more synthesis etc. on wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap
>
> There is, I agree, much more work to be done in identifying and clarifying
> further problems we should be looking to address. But from what I've read
> and heard, there seems to be some pretty strong consensus around the
> problems I've identified above; and ideally, I would have stated that out
> in an intro to my message. If there is *disagreement* on those issues, I
> think it would be good to hear it.
>
> Along with you, I welcome further deliberation of what the problems are
> that should be solved, and if I suggested otherwise I regret giving that
> impression.
>
> I strongly hope and believe, though, that the Board is already working to
> address the subset of rather obvious problems that is at least similar to
> what I listed above. Those problems need to be addressed quickly, and I
> believe it's best if various stakeholders in the Wikimedia vision -- not
> just the 9 members of the Board -- weigh in on the best way to address
> them. If there is a consensus that we shouldn't do that here in public, I
> can take it off this list; but speaking for myself, I'd like to see some
> public deliberation and consensus-building about more immediate steps,
> rather than a bunch of individual efforts to lobby the Board.
>
> I don't intend any of this to be a total solution. Regarding Keegan's
> response, of course there is always a seat at the table! But I appreciate
> your speaking up about it. Still, my list is very much influenced by what I
> have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like
> your seat is getting cold without you. :)
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> > Strong +1 to Risker.
> >
> > Collecting ideas to work more on as we move forward: YES. Keeping the
> > constructive attitude and opened comm channels I've seen here and and
> among
> > staff internally: YES.
> >
> > But let's be deliberate, and considerate. We do have to learn and process
> > before we implement anything.
> >
> > That all said I think I'm approaching my monthly 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Pete Forsyth]

Risker and Brion:

I very much agree with the principles you're stating, and am coming to
realize I should have framed my message differently. There has actually
been quite a lot of discussion of what the problems are, and I am basing my
suggestions on the ones that I've personally seen a lot of attention to.
Namely (as I stated, in part, above):
* It might take a very long time to get a new ED, which would be bad
* We might get an ED who does not effectively absorb information and values
from staff and community
* Appointing an interim ED in a hurry (one month) might not bring us
somebody who's best for the long term
* Funders (both institutions and individuals) might be skeptical about
giving, due to recent issues
* On Point #6, a great deal of work has already been done on identifying
problems here, and I look forward to seeing more synthesis etc. on wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap

There is, I agree, much more work to be done in identifying and clarifying
further problems we should be looking to address. But from what I've read
and heard, there seems to be some pretty strong consensus around the
problems I've identified above; and ideally, I would have stated that out
in an intro to my message. If there is *disagreement* on those issues, I
think it would be good to hear it.

Along with you, I welcome further deliberation of what the problems are
that should be solved, and if I suggested otherwise I regret giving that
impression.

I strongly hope and believe, though, that the Board is already working to
address the subset of rather obvious problems that is at least similar to
what I listed above. Those problems need to be addressed quickly, and I
believe it's best if various stakeholders in the Wikimedia vision -- not
just the 9 members of the Board -- weigh in on the best way to address
them. If there is a consensus that we shouldn't do that here in public, I
can take it off this list; but speaking for myself, I'd like to see some
public deliberation and consensus-building about more immediate steps,
rather than a bunch of individual efforts to lobby the Board.

I don't intend any of this to be a total solution. Regarding Keegan's
response, of course there is always a seat at the table! But I appreciate
your speaking up about it. Still, my list is very much influenced by what I
have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like
your seat is getting cold without you. :)

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> Strong +1 to Risker.
>
> Collecting ideas to work more on as we move forward: YES. Keeping the
> constructive attitude and opened comm channels I've seen here and and among
> staff internally: YES.
>
> But let's be deliberate, and considerate. We do have to learn and process
> before we implement anything.
>
> That all said I think I'm approaching my monthly list message quota, so I'm
> probably going to quiet down on list for a bit as I talk to people in SF.
> :)
>
> I'll be making public-side notes on meta under my user page.
>
> -- brion
> On Feb 26, 2016 4:59 PM, "Risker"  wrote:
>
> > I think in fairness that it is not just staff who are feeling this is all
> > moving too fast.  The overwhelming majority of community members, and in
> > particular community members who don't read and speak English fluently,
> are
> > likely to be pretty overwhelmed right now too.
> >
> >
> > I am concerned that what we are seeing right now are a whole pile of
> > solutions when we haven't yet worked out what the actual problems are.
> > This is actually quite a bad thing, because it creates a climate where
> > people come to a conclusion about what to do before they have worked out
> > whether or not it is solving a problem, creating a different problem,
> > "fixing" a non-existent problem, or immaterial to the actual problems.
> >
> > Let's work out what went wrong before we really start pushing what we
> think
> > will make things right.  The foundation is not a wiki where quick and
> easy
> > corrections are considered the norm; in fact, based on the concerns of
> some
> > that strategy changed practically on a quarterly basis, some slow
> > considered thinking is probably called for.  The Wikimedia movement has
> not
> > had time to catch up with current events and certainly doesn't need
> > solutions before it's barely worked out why there's a trainwreck on the
> > mailing list.  And...perhaps most importantly we are talking about
> real
> > people here. The board and executives, the staff, the community
> > memberswe're all people. Moving too fast without figuring out what
> the
> > actual issues are is harmful to the human beings here.
> >
> > The collective "we" have not had time to understand the problems. Quite a
> > few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours are
> > nothing much more than personal wishlists; 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Pine W]

I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and
staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks
we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I
guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread
professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least
some staff.

I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR,
if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized*
comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to
inform the discussions about the future.

I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting
about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space
while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial
for WMF in the rebuilding phase.

Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.

If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.

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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Dan Garry]

On 26 February 2016 at 16:57, Leigh Thelmadatter 
wrote:

> Should only the staff have a say in this vision?  Almost all, if not all,
> of this talk is about what the staff wants.
>

You are correct that non-staff should have a say in the vision, of course.
It affects everyone in the movement, as well as our readers.

However, as the staff have been and will be more directly involved with the
Executive Director on a day-to-day level, it seems sensible to consider
such viewpoints carefully.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Florence Devouard]

Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:



However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need
to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the
WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved
in paid editing.


​Hi Pete,


I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
could help unpaid editors.

To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have no
relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
exactly the opposite.)

It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might work,
but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the core
policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
COI.

I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would be
something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.

Sarah
___
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, 




Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.

Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly 
change its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in 
the editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the 
content.
If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in 
paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.


Flo


___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Dan Garry]

On 26 February 2016 at 17:15, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>
> * There is also a big need for private conversations, which means many/most
> of these talks won't be recorded and definitely would not be made public in
> detail. Many won't feel comfortable in a recorded conversation. Many still
> won't feel comfortable in a large group that's not recorded. Many still
> won't feel comfortable in a small group conversation. And others still
> won't feel comfortable opening up in a 1:1 private conversation with
> someone in a power position at their employer.
>

Well said. It's crucial to foster an environment in which anyone and
everyone can raise their concerns in a space that they are comfortable
with, in order to make sure people's voices are heard.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Brion Vibber]

Strong +1 to Risker.

Collecting ideas to work more on as we move forward: YES. Keeping the
constructive attitude and opened comm channels I've seen here and and among
staff internally: YES.

But let's be deliberate, and considerate. We do have to learn and process
before we implement anything.

That all said I think I'm approaching my monthly list message quota, so I'm
probably going to quiet down on list for a bit as I talk to people in SF. :)

I'll be making public-side notes on meta under my user page.

-- brion
On Feb 26, 2016 4:59 PM, "Risker"  wrote:

> I think in fairness that it is not just staff who are feeling this is all
> moving too fast.  The overwhelming majority of community members, and in
> particular community members who don't read and speak English fluently, are
> likely to be pretty overwhelmed right now too.
>
>
> I am concerned that what we are seeing right now are a whole pile of
> solutions when we haven't yet worked out what the actual problems are.
> This is actually quite a bad thing, because it creates a climate where
> people come to a conclusion about what to do before they have worked out
> whether or not it is solving a problem, creating a different problem,
> "fixing" a non-existent problem, or immaterial to the actual problems.
>
> Let's work out what went wrong before we really start pushing what we think
> will make things right.  The foundation is not a wiki where quick and easy
> corrections are considered the norm; in fact, based on the concerns of some
> that strategy changed practically on a quarterly basis, some slow
> considered thinking is probably called for.  The Wikimedia movement has not
> had time to catch up with current events and certainly doesn't need
> solutions before it's barely worked out why there's a trainwreck on the
> mailing list.  And...perhaps most importantly we are talking about real
> people here. The board and executives, the staff, the community
> memberswe're all people. Moving too fast without figuring out what the
> actual issues are is harmful to the human beings here.
>
> The collective "we" have not had time to understand the problems. Quite a
> few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours are
> nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are proposing
> to solve problems that may or may not even exist.
>
> Let's work more on problem identification first.
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 19:44, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very
> aware
> > that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll.
> > Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking with a
> > number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to
> whatever
> > degree it's possible to empathize without "being there," I do.
> >
> > However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's
> comfortable
> > *for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's
> > possible to do*.
> >
> > The prospect of a drawn-out, even multi-year search for the next
> long-term
> > Executive Director is not a good one. The way the organization rebuilds
> > itself and sets expectations will have a huge impact on that. The impact
> on
> > fund-raising will be felt, as well; high-profile contention around a
> grant
> > is being discussed throughout the philanthropy world, and will impact the
> > way individual donors respond to banners, as well.
> >
> > I am confident that the Board is already turning its attention to issues
> > like these. Many things need to be done whenever an executive director
> > leaves an organization, and there are many reasons to attend to them in a
> > timely fashion -- without rushing through and making bad decisions.
> >
> > Individual Trustees have expressed interest and gratitude for the ideas
> > under discussion, and I appreciate knowing that they are considering
> input.
> > This list may not be the best way to reach the board, but it's a good
> place
> > to see whether there is consensus around certain ideas.
> >
> > That's what I'm trying to do. I know that forging ahead while exhausted
> > sucks, and I am not trying to push anybody faster than they want to go.
> But
> > I also think that this moment for careful deliberation shouldn't be
> missed;
> > some of the opportunities will pass by very quickly if nothing is done.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > ___
> > 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:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Risker]

I think in fairness that it is not just staff who are feeling this is all
moving too fast.  The overwhelming majority of community members, and in
particular community members who don't read and speak English fluently, are
likely to be pretty overwhelmed right now too.


I am concerned that what we are seeing right now are a whole pile of
solutions when we haven't yet worked out what the actual problems are.
This is actually quite a bad thing, because it creates a climate where
people come to a conclusion about what to do before they have worked out
whether or not it is solving a problem, creating a different problem,
"fixing" a non-existent problem, or immaterial to the actual problems.

Let's work out what went wrong before we really start pushing what we think
will make things right.  The foundation is not a wiki where quick and easy
corrections are considered the norm; in fact, based on the concerns of some
that strategy changed practically on a quarterly basis, some slow
considered thinking is probably called for.  The Wikimedia movement has not
had time to catch up with current events and certainly doesn't need
solutions before it's barely worked out why there's a trainwreck on the
mailing list.  And...perhaps most importantly we are talking about real
people here. The board and executives, the staff, the community
memberswe're all people. Moving too fast without figuring out what the
actual issues are is harmful to the human beings here.

The collective "we" have not had time to understand the problems. Quite a
few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours are
nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are proposing
to solve problems that may or may not even exist.

Let's work more on problem identification first.


Risker/Anne

On 26 February 2016 at 19:44, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very aware
> that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll.
> Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking with a
> number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to whatever
> degree it's possible to empathize without "being there," I do.
>
> However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's comfortable
> *for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's
> possible to do*.
>
> The prospect of a drawn-out, even multi-year search for the next long-term
> Executive Director is not a good one. The way the organization rebuilds
> itself and sets expectations will have a huge impact on that. The impact on
> fund-raising will be felt, as well; high-profile contention around a grant
> is being discussed throughout the philanthropy world, and will impact the
> way individual donors respond to banners, as well.
>
> I am confident that the Board is already turning its attention to issues
> like these. Many things need to be done whenever an executive director
> leaves an organization, and there are many reasons to attend to them in a
> timely fashion -- without rushing through and making bad decisions.
>
> Individual Trustees have expressed interest and gratitude for the ideas
> under discussion, and I appreciate knowing that they are considering input.
> This list may not be the best way to reach the board, but it's a good place
> to see whether there is consensus around certain ideas.
>
> That's what I'm trying to do. I know that forging ahead while exhausted
> sucks, and I am not trying to push anybody faster than they want to go. But
> I also think that this moment for careful deliberation shouldn't be missed;
> some of the opportunities will pass by very quickly if nothing is done.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Greg Grossmeier]

> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
> the ED/Management.

I think you're misinterpreting.

The agree/disagree statement was:
"Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
motivates me"  (7% agree)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes#WMF_staff_morale

See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
"The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
so."

So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.

This is getting off topic, however.

The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency is
needed in an ED.

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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Should only the staff have a say in this vision?  Almost all, if not all, of 
this talk is about what the staff wants.  




> From: yastrak...@wikimedia.org
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 03:45:28 +0300
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?
> 
> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
> the ED/Management.
> 
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Subbu, one of the chief complains I heard about Lila was that she did not
> > > provide a clear vision. Yet, if we choose stewardship over leadership,
> > > that, at least in my mind, implies more of a mediator than a leader,
> > > without providing any clear vision themselves.  So is vision no longer a
> > > requirement from the ED?
> >
> > Vision shouldn't be a one-person created thing.
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's comfortable
> *for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's
> possible to do*.
>

Oh absolutely, forge ahead. My message was in no way asking anyone to slow
down, just a nod to the list that some of us are going to sit back for a
bit, so please save a seats at the table :)

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] The reinstatement of James Heilman

[Kevin Gorman]

Hi all -

I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to
a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.

I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who was
actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if Dr.
James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the next
three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
the Wikimedia Foundation.

And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.


Kevin Gorman
___
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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
the ED/Management.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:

> 
> > Subbu, one of the chief complains I heard about Lila was that she did not
> > provide a clear vision. Yet, if we choose stewardship over leadership,
> > that, at least in my mind, implies more of a mediator than a leader,
> > without providing any clear vision themselves.  So is vision no longer a
> > requirement from the ED?
>
> Vision shouldn't be a one-person created thing.
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Pete Forsyth]

To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very aware
that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll.
Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking with a
number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to whatever
degree it's possible to empathize without "being there," I do.

However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's comfortable
*for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's
possible to do*.

The prospect of a drawn-out, even multi-year search for the next long-term
Executive Director is not a good one. The way the organization rebuilds
itself and sets expectations will have a huge impact on that. The impact on
fund-raising will be felt, as well; high-profile contention around a grant
is being discussed throughout the philanthropy world, and will impact the
way individual donors respond to banners, as well.

I am confident that the Board is already turning its attention to issues
like these. Many things need to be done whenever an executive director
leaves an organization, and there are many reasons to attend to them in a
timely fashion -- without rushing through and making bad decisions.

Individual Trustees have expressed interest and gratitude for the ideas
under discussion, and I appreciate knowing that they are considering input.
This list may not be the best way to reach the board, but it's a good place
to see whether there is consensus around certain ideas.

That's what I'm trying to do. I know that forging ahead while exhausted
sucks, and I am not trying to push anybody faster than they want to go. But
I also think that this moment for careful deliberation shouldn't be missed;
some of the opportunities will pass by very quickly if nothing is done.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Greg Grossmeier]

> Subbu, one of the chief complains I heard about Lila was that she did not
> provide a clear vision. Yet, if we choose stewardship over leadership,
> that, at least in my mind, implies more of a mediator than a leader,
> without providing any clear vision themselves.  So is vision no longer a
> requirement from the ED?

Vision shouldn't be a one-person created thing.

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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Subbu, one of the chief complains I heard about Lila was that she did not
provide a clear vision. Yet, if we choose stewardship over leadership,
that, at least in my mind, implies more of a mediator than a leader,
without providing any clear vision themselves.  So is vision no longer a
requirement from the ED?

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Subramanya Sastry 
wrote:

> On 02/26/2016 05:39 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>
>> I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED,
>>
>
> Having more of an attitude stewardship over leadership .. i.e. this is not
> a place or space to primarily fulfil personal ambitions.
>
> Subbu.
>
>
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Brion Vibber]

On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes"  wrote:
>
> When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain
> no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending
> time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be
> talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the
> concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that
> worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels
> like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful
> situation.
>
> I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to
> communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that
> it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use,
> within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I
> of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation
> with your words has profound implications for how people approach you
> and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional
> ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some
> people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate
> very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the
> Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which
> were totally legitimate - dismissed.

Seconded all this from Oliver.

To Jimmy: we've been doing Wikipedia and Wikimedia a long time, you and I.
:) And in that time we've both learned good and bad habits.

One of those bad habits is known as "setting the bozo bit" in old school
geek culture: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit

Tuning out the concerns of people because they often disagree makes our own
lives easier on the short term, but at best it's a risk that you'll lose
useful feedback, and at worst you can alienate people who could have become
allies on some other topic... Or helped you avoid a sticky situation they
saw coming that you didn't.

It's something I've tried very hard to get away from when I interact with
other developers and users. And sometimes it's really hard. But a lot of
the people I unset the bit from are now doing amazing things... Some of
them now work for you as WMF developers and managers, and I'm glad I didn't
mistreat them early on.

When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad
antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and have
a lot to tell you.

This is the time to listen honestly even (especially?) to those whose
narratives mismatch your own.

I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one of
those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch
out for.

Your staff is still raw and suspicious all around; the word "trauma" gets
used with total sincerity. We'd really appreciate care in how you describe
what's happening; it'll go a long way to making the next few days and the
further discussions you're planning to make really useful.

-- brion

>
> (As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about
> group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record
> we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this
> critical time, increases transparency.)
>
> [0]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29=prev=15301332
> [1] No, I was not one of them)
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
>
> ___
> 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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Subramanya Sastry]

On 02/26/2016 05:39 PM, Lodewijk wrote:

I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED,


Having more of an attitude stewardship over leadership .. i.e. this is 
not a place or space to primarily fulfil personal ambitions.


Subbu.

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Pine W]

If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy can
be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting,
video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a
step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that the
transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF to
exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the videos
could be widely accessible inside of WMF.  I think that the videos would be
instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and other
Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons learned
and opportunities for organizational development.

Pine

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try.  But I know that for people
> > new to our world, it's really quite confusing.  You hear a lot of voices
> > and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones
> > are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with
> > little substance.  If you listen to those who are going to complain no
> > matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.  If you
> > don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters,
> > you'll miss important things.  Knowing the difference is... well...
> > ambiguous even in the best of times.
> >
> > So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San
> > Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more
> > visits in the coming months.  And part of what I want to do is get a
> > better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have,
> > so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED,
> > and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.
>
>
> Jimmy,
>
> A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know;
> stopped clocks and all that).
>
> A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last
> few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not
> watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time
> wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5
> basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the
> sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of the
> problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal to
> give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed,
> some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due
> to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing
> transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or
> "chronic complainers" were eminently justified.
>
> When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain
> no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending
> time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be
> talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the
> concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that
> worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels
> like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful
> situation.
>
> I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to
> communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that
> it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use,
> within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I
> of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation
> with your words has profound implications for how people approach you
> and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional
> ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some
> people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate
> very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the
> Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which
> were totally legitimate - dismissed.
>
> (As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about
> group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record
> we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this
> critical time, increases transparency.)
>
> [0]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29=prev=15301332
> [1] No, I was not one of them)
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
>
> ___
> 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] (no subject)

[attolippip]

+1 to Yurik



best regards,
antanana

2016-02-27 1:23 GMT+02:00 Yuri Astrakhan :

> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks.  My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone.  In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
>
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> > While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward
> to
> > discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
> >
> > To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered
> rude
> > by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
> > people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
> possibly
> > be a slap in the face of someone you like.
> >
> > If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
> > board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <
> yastrak...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
> > Raul
> > > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> > > current role.
> > >
> > > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> > > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> > > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> > > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> > > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> > > direction-determining force.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> > > >
> > > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has
> been
> > > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > > > decision.
> > > >
> > > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of
> feeling
> > > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in
> hearing
> > > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > > > informed.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
> > dandree...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
> brand
> > > of
> > > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> > > position
> > > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > > > >
> > > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an
> awkward
> > > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
> > start
> > > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> > > with a
> > > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > > > >
> > > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
> > It
> > > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
> > and
> > > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other
> and
> > we
> > > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
> > is
> > > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Original Message
> > > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
> > > share
> > > > > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of
> rebuilding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the
> community,
> > > and
> > > > > even 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 2016-02-26 6:39 PM, Lodewijk wrote:

I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED, what
kind of person you would be looking for - rather than specific people.


Above all, and foremost amongst any quality an ED should have is to be 
an *excellent* communicator.  I see the primary role of the ED as the 
facilitator-in-chief - it's a little insane to gather around oneself the 
best minds to do a job and then try to do that job oneself.


-- Coren / Marc

___
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] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Lodewijk]

(changing the topic, to avoid doing myself what I criticise)
I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED, what
kind of person you would be looking for - rather than specific people. That
would actually be an interesting and valuable discussion to have in public,
I'd think.

Public discussions are good, but not every topic is best discussed in
public (like specific people: there's a reason votes on people are
generally secret). That doesn't mean that every non-public discussion leads
to good results :) In the wikiworld I know, when people are being
discussed, they often nominated themselves, or agreed to be nominated. I
know this may be different on enwiki to some extent, maybe that's a
cultural trait. I haven't encountered this in any other wiki (but may have
missed a few).

But a good framework that came out of a public discussion, may help the
non-public discussion about the names a lot.

Anyway, just my two cents. I can't stop you from shouting names of course...

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks.  My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone.  In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
>
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> > While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward
> to
> > discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
> >
> > To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered
> rude
> > by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
> > people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
> possibly
> > be a slap in the face of someone you like.
> >
> > If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
> > board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <
> yastrak...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
> > Raul
> > > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> > > current role.
> > >
> > > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> > > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> > > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> > > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> > > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> > > direction-determining force.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> > > >
> > > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has
> been
> > > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > > > decision.
> > > >
> > > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of
> feeling
> > > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in
> hearing
> > > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > > > informed.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
> > dandree...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
> brand
> > > of
> > > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> > > position
> > > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > > > >
> > > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an
> awkward
> > > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
> > start
> > > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> > > with a
> > > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > > > >
> > > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
> > It
> > > > was not just Lila. Second, we 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[SarahSV]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

>
> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need
> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the
> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved
> in paid editing.
>
>
> ​Hi Pete,

I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
could help unpaid editors.

To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have no
relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
exactly the opposite.)

It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might work,
but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the core
policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
COI.

I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would be
something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.

Sarah
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Oliver Keyes]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
> I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try.  But I know that for people
> new to our world, it's really quite confusing.  You hear a lot of voices
> and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones
> are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with
> little substance.  If you listen to those who are going to complain no
> matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.  If you
> don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters,
> you'll miss important things.  Knowing the difference is... well...
> ambiguous even in the best of times.
>
> So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San
> Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more
> visits in the coming months.  And part of what I want to do is get a
> better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have,
> so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED,
> and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.


Jimmy,

A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know;
stopped clocks and all that).

A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last
few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not
watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time
wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5
basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the
sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of the
problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal to
give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed,
some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due
to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing
transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or
"chronic complainers" were eminently justified.

When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain
no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending
time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be
talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the
concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that
worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels
like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful
situation.

I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to
communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that
it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use,
within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I
of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation
with your words has profound implications for how people approach you
and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional
ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some
people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate
very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the
Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which
were totally legitimate - dismissed.

(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about
group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record
we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this
critical time, increases transparency.)

[0] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29=prev=15301332
[1] No, I was not one of them)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

___
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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks.  My understanding is that
this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone.  In
the wiki world, I think most of the time people
have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
this might not be exactly the same.

On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to
> discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
>
> To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude
> by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
> people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would possibly
> be a slap in the face of someone you like.
>
> If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
> board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan  >
> wrote:
>
> > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
> Raul
> > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> > current role.
> >
> > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> > direction-determining force.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> > >
> > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
> > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > > decision.
> > >
> > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
> > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
> > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > > informed.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
> dandree...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand
> > of
> > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> > position
> > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > > >
> > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
> > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
> start
> > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> > with a
> > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > > >
> > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
> It
> > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
> and
> > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> > > >
> > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and
> we
> > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
> is
> > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> > > >
> > > >   Original Message
> > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> > > >
> > > > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
> would
> > > be
> > > > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
> > share
> > > > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
> > > >
> > > > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community,
> > and
> > > > even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
> > United
> > > > States.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Lodewijk]

While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to
discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.

To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude
by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would possibly
be a slap in the face of someone you like.

If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as Raul
> Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> current role.
>
> Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> direction-determining force.
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> >
> > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
> > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > decision.
> >
> > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
> > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
> > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > informed.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu  >
> > wrote:
> > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand
> of
> > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> position
> > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > >
> > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
> > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start
> > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> with a
> > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > >
> > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It
> > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and
> > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> > >
> > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we
> > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is
> > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> > >
> > >   Original Message
> > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> > >
> > > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would
> > be
> > > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
> share
> > > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
> > >
> > > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community,
> and
> > > even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
> United
> > > States.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > ___
> > > 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 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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Yuri Astrakhan]

For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as Raul
Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
current role.

Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
direction-determining force.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
>
> Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
> watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> decision.
>
> I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
> that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
> from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> informed.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu 
> wrote:
> > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of
> intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position
> at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> >
> > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
> collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start
> piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a
> different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> >
> > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It
> was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and
> what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> >
> > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we
> trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is
> our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> >
> >   Original Message
> > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> >
> > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would
> be
> > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
> > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
> >
> > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
> > even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
> > States.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > ___
> > 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 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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Oliver Keyes]

+1. It's difficult without breaking fifteen NDAs to underscore exactly
how shellshocked and traumatised staff are right now, dealing with all
of this for 8 hours a day for 3-18 months, depending on the nature of
their concerns. As the people most impacted by negative or positive
changes to the organisation it is imperative that their perspectives
be involved in these conversations, and at the moment I don't think
there's the emotional energy to do that. The emotional energy people
have is much better spent healing as people, and as teams, and as an
entity.

This isn't to say these points aren't valuable (they are!) merely that
at the moment they're probably most valuable as an airing of opinions
without consequence - a committee of the house, in parliamentary
terms. I wouldn't expect any of them to immediately result in changes,
and I think we'd be poorer if they did right now with such a big chunk
of the affected parties not in a space to contribute.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Keegan Peterzell
 wrote:
> (slightly indirect to the topic, but not worth its own thread)
>
> Hey Pete,
>
> Thanks for your time and reflection, and that extend to everyone else, with
> this and related topics over the past month. Wikimedia-l has actually been
> a refreshing kind of place, where cautious respect and rational discourse
> has been taking place. I've appreciated it greatly as events progressed as
> they did. These conversations are what meatballwiki[0] is made of, and what
> built Wikimedia in the first place.
>
> I look forward to these conversations continuing here, on meta, privately,
> Facebook, and all the other mediums, which is getting to my point: let's
> please keep all these much-needed discussions at a measured pace. I know
> that I'm shell-shocked[1] to a good extent from the recent past, with the
> burnout that comes with it as well, and I know I'm not the only one. I'd
> like to participate in, and not just read, these conversations, but I know
> it's going to take me some time to get back into the spirit of
> meta-discussions about Wikimedia. Othes as well.
>
> So please, continue talking, sharing, misunderstanding and then working it
> out, and all those other wonderful things, but please do remember that
> there are some of us who are going to be silent a bit in our reflection,
> and hopefully we'll be speaking again in the future.
>
> Everything else (for me, at least) is back to business/volunteering as
> usual.
>
> 0. http://meatballwiki.org
> 1. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15061465#sitelinks-wikipedia
>
> --
> Keegan Peterzell
> Community Liaison, Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Oliver Keyes]

I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.

Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
decision.

I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
informed.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu  wrote:
> I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of 
> intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at 
> this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
>
> We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse 
> of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the 
> rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different 
> keystone, let's take a breath and think.
>
> First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It was 
> not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what 
> criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
>
> We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we trust 
> each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our 
> foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
>
>   Original Message
> From: Yuri Astrakhan
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
>
> I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
> a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
> movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
>
> Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
> even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
> States.
>
> Thoughts?
> ___
> 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 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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Dan Andreescu]

I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of 
intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at 
this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.

We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse 
of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we start piling the 
rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape with a different 
keystone, let's take a breath and think.

First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed. It was not 
just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have and what criteria 
we should use to evaluate those options.

We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and we trust 
each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This is our 
foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.

  Original Message  
From: Yuri Astrakhan
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.

Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
States.

Thoughts?
___
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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Pete Forsyth]

Lawrence Lessig has done wonderful things for the free culture movement
(including making that very phrase famous!) I am pretty confident, given
his recent interests, that he would not want this position,but he's well
worth discussing anyway.

Though I don't know Larry Lessig personally, I do know his organization
(Creative Commons) well. And interestingly enough, CC has recently
undergone a substantial shift in its leadership (board turnover and CEO
turnover). It has been carried out in a remarkably drama-free way; just
last week, I talked to the current CEO and two recent past leaders, who all
tell very much the same story, and all feel that the organization is better
off, despite having gone through some turbulent times, and despite having
further work ahead.

I would strongly support any organizational effort to learn from Creative
Commons' recent experiences, and how to emulate its success and/or learn
from less than ideal parts of its process.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
> a good fit for the ED position.  This person has to fit culturally, share
> movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
>
> Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
> even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
> States.
>
> Thoughts?
> ___
> 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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Nathan]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
> a good fit for the ED position.  This person has to fit culturally, share
> movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
>
> Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
> even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
> States.
>
> Thoughts?


What do you know about his management experience?
___
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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Keegan Peterzell]

(slightly indirect to the topic, but not worth its own thread)

Hey Pete,

Thanks for your time and reflection, and that extend to everyone else, with
this and related topics over the past month. Wikimedia-l has actually been
a refreshing kind of place, where cautious respect and rational discourse
has been taking place. I've appreciated it greatly as events progressed as
they did. These conversations are what meatballwiki[0] is made of, and what
built Wikimedia in the first place.

I look forward to these conversations continuing here, on meta, privately,
Facebook, and all the other mediums, which is getting to my point: let's
please keep all these much-needed discussions at a measured pace. I know
that I'm shell-shocked[1] to a good extent from the recent past, with the
burnout that comes with it as well, and I know I'm not the only one. I'd
like to participate in, and not just read, these conversations, but I know
it's going to take me some time to get back into the spirit of
meta-discussions about Wikimedia. Othes as well.

So please, continue talking, sharing, misunderstanding and then working it
out, and all those other wonderful things, but please do remember that
there are some of us who are going to be silent a bit in our reflection,
and hopefully we'll be speaking again in the future.

Everything else (for me, at least) is back to business/volunteering as
usual.

0. http://meatballwiki.org
1. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15061465#sitelinks-wikipedia

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

[Yuri Astrakhan]

I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
a good fit for the ED position.  This person has to fit culturally, share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.

Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
States.

Thoughts?
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Fæ]

Thanks for considering being the interim CEO Jimmy.

Your visit sounds useful, especially "I want to better understand the
outlines of what staff want from their next ED, so that information
can be used to help guide the search." Fortunate for the trustees who
are less proactive, that they can rely on your visionary guidance at
this time, and that you can take questions and speak on their behalf.

I hope you will be able to address nagging concerns about your
personal support for keeping the search project a secret last year,
and your conflict of loyalties during that process, shortly after your
visit. No doubt you will be able to apply your excellent communication
skills when engaging with the community to ensure the process stays on
your preferred path.[1]

I look forward to the feedback from your visit being posted, Asaf's
process sounds like it would be a great opportunity for airing the
issues and getting the important ones down in black and white. With
this banked, we may all be able to move towards a common understanding
of true deep root causes and how they can shifted.

Links
1. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/jimbotalk-explodes-with-jimbo/

Writing as a committed Wikimedian with no possible conflicts of interest,
Fae

On 26 February 2016 at 20:02, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> On 2/26/16 3:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone has
>> to be.
>
> No, that isn't going to happen.  There has been some staff and board
> advocacy of it - the idea has been floated - but although I took the
> idea seriously enough to think about it, I can see that it would not be
> the best thing.  Day to day management is not where I can best add value
> - never has been.
>
> --Jimbo
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Tanel Pern]

Congratulations and good luck!



2016-02-26 1:02 GMT+02:00 Maggie Dennis :

> Hello, all.
>
> I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the role
> of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking up
> the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
> the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first program
> officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m grateful
> to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
> with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
>
> We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> grants program in the weeks ahead.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maggie
>
> P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> 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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Pete Forsyth]

Thank you Yaroslav for this very important addition. Yes, let's call it #6
(even if it should be higher :) In terms of specific next steps, Anthony
Cole offered a very compelling point about transparency on Meta Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard=1537440=15384280=15383429

In short, Wikimedia current Code of Conduct includes the following:
"People acting on the Foundation’s behalf must respect and maintain the
confidentiality of sensitive information ...[including] information about
the internal workings of the Foundation..."

This could easily be misinterpreted to having Trustees or staff default to
opacity even in cases where transparency would be beneficial. The Code of
Conduct should be amended to give clearer guidance on this point -- and
Board and staff onboarding processes should address it as well.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-02-26 21:20, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of
>> contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of
>> getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the next
>> specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present
>> these
>> points very directly, in order to be concise and in the hopes of hearing
>> the perspectives of others. In other words -- I think this is a good list,
>> but I'm open to persuasion -- as I think we all are in this community. I
>> look forward to hearing from others who take a broad view of where this
>> movement and organization are, and where we need to go. And of course,
>> much
>> of what I say below is inspired by previous messages from people like
>> Brion, Delphine, Asaf, Milos, etc. Anyhow, on to some specifics
>> suggestions:
>>
>>
> Hi Pete,
>
> thanks for excellent suggestions, which hopefully will give us all food
> for thought.
>
> I was searching your mail for the keyword "transparency" and did not find
> a single usage. I think this is an important point, which should possibly
> be considered as #6. Many of our troubles from the last year arose because
> people have acted untransparently. Whereas it is clear that some issues are
> privacy sensitive, and full disclosure would not be possible, we should
> agree that for every important decision it should be clear who made it,
> what was the motivation, and preferably important stkeholders (including
> the community) should have been contacted before the decision has been
> made, not after that.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Asaf Bartov]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> On 2/26/16 10:39 AM, GorillaWarfare wrote:
> > frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of
> > the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I
> hope
> > that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear
> > reassurance that you realize this is necessary.
>
> Yes, this is necessary.  I'm continuing to push for more disclosure and
> more openness.
>

Who's resisting?


> In particular, as I have been reflecting on all this, I realized that I
> was much closer to Sue and much more involved in her "on boarding" and
> learning about our culture.  I think I failed Lila in this regard - we
> talked from time to time, but I didn't do enough to help her understand.
>

Don't beat yourself up over it.  Unlike the days of Sue's onboarding, when
Lila came in there was an abundance of experienced staff with significant
community experience to help immerse her in the culture and to continually
offer advice, guidance, or point out pitfalls.  This was readily and
repeatedly on offer.  It was repeatedly rejected outright, and occasionally
heard out and ignored, apparently without rationale.  (I think it's
absolutely fine, of course, to hear out the advice or perspective of
experienced staff and to decide to act otherwise, with rationale -- even if
not stated explicitly.)  I can supply concrete examples, but at this point,
it is done, and it would be better to focus on principles and on rebuilding.


> I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try.  But I know that for people
> new to our world, it's really quite confusing.  You hear a lot of voices
> and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones
> are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with
> little substance.  If you listen to those who are going to complain no
> matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.  If you
> don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters,
> you'll miss important things.  Knowing the difference is... well...
> ambiguous even in the best of times.
>

That's certainly true.  But again: help with that was available.  It was
discounted.


> So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San
> Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more
> visits in the coming months.  And part of what I want to do is get a
> better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have,
> so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED,
> and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.
>

Excellent.  I encourage all my colleagues to make the most of this
opportunity.  I think it would be ideal if, in addition to allow people who
strongly prefer that to meet with him 1:1, we strive to meet with Jimmy as
teams or otherwise as groups, both to optimize time and make sure almost
everyone can be heard, and to create multi-perspective conversations
accompanied by note-taking.

I look forward to seeing you here soon, Jimmy.

   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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-26 21:20, Pete Forsyth wrote:

All:

Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of
contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of
getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the 
next
specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present 
these
points very directly, in order to be concise and in the hopes of 
hearing
the perspectives of others. In other words -- I think this is a good 
list,
but I'm open to persuasion -- as I think we all are in this community. 
I

look forward to hearing from others who take a broad view of where this
movement and organization are, and where we need to go. And of course, 
much

of what I say below is inspired by previous messages from people like
Brion, Delphine, Asaf, Milos, etc. Anyhow, on to some specifics 
suggestions:




Hi Pete,

thanks for excellent suggestions, which hopefully will give us all food 
for thought.


I was searching your mail for the keyword "transparency" and did not 
find a single usage. I think this is an important point, which should 
possibly be considered as #6. Many of our troubles from the last year 
arose because people have acted untransparently. Whereas it is clear 
that some issues are privacy sensitive, and full disclosure would not be 
possible, we should agree that for every important decision it should be 
clear who made it, what was the motivation, and preferably important 
stkeholders (including the community) should have been contacted before 
the decision has been made, not after that.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Lodewijk]

I'm guessing speculation at this point is just moot. The board will be
deciding on this, and most likely in silence. If you have candidates, the
best way to make their case is to send their names to someone on the board.
I'm assuming they will at least announce soon a contact point for such
suggestions (likely someoen at a recruitment agency?)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Le 26/02/16 16:46, Theo10011 a écrit :
>
>> Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone
>> has
>> to be.
>>
>
> Speechless...
>
> Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get
>> more difficult after Lila and Arnon. The only question is, if the board
>> brings back someone or chooses to promote/move someone around. Food for
>> thought.
>>
>
> Either an interim ED (there are plenty on the market in SF), but I see way
> more reasons not to go down this route than benefits.
>
> Or getting a current (or ex) C level to be interim deputy whilst the
> loong search process delivers its fruits.
>
> Flo
>
>
>
> Theo
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, Lodewijk  wrote:
>>
>> #Iamwithrisker
>>> ___
>>> 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 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] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of
contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of
getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the next
specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present these
points very directly, in order to be concise and in the hopes of hearing
the perspectives of others. In other words -- I think this is a good list,
but I'm open to persuasion -- as I think we all are in this community. I
look forward to hearing from others who take a broad view of where this
movement and organization are, and where we need to go. And of course, much
of what I say below is inspired by previous messages from people like
Brion, Delphine, Asaf, Milos, etc. Anyhow, on to some specifics suggestions:

1. The Board of Trustees should clearly establish that the interim
Executive Director position is NOT a fast-track to the long-term position.
While it may be tempting to ease the search for a long-term ED, I think the
greatest need from an interim is that they will bring some stability and
order back to the organization. An interim shouldn't be introducing big new
ideas, and shouldn't be distracted that they might need to introduce big
new ideas once the position becomes permanent; they will have enough work
to do just getting things back on track. This point should be made clear to
interim candidates, and also to the staff and volunteer communities at
large.

2. The Board should rethink the job listing of the long-term ED. As I
argued in an op-ed in 2014,[2] the single most important quality in an ED
for our movement is an ability to deal with broad and diverse groups of
stakeholders. This is a skill that exists in the world, it is not unique to
Wikimedia; many people who have been successful in roles like running a
university, a hospital system, working for change in a broad social
movement, etc. will have developed this kind of skill. Technical
proficiency would be valuable if a good candidate happens to have it; same
with an existing familiarity with Wikimedia. But neither technical
proficiency nor Wikimedia experience should be regarded as requirements.
The former can be delegated, and the latter can be learned (by a person
with the right kind of background).

3. The Board should set up the next long-term ED for success. Any good
candidate for the ED position will research what happened the last time
around, and will have pointed questions about how they are being set up for
success. It might be tempting for some to place the entire blame for where
we are with the departing ED; but that would be neither fair nor accurate,
and any smart candidate will be able to see that from the news coverage and
other public records and any private discussions they may have. So,
specifically:

3a. Changes to Board composition: Are there remaining members of the Board
whose approach to the last job search, and/or whose engagement with the
departing ED, pointed things in the wrong direction? If so, it might be
best for them to step aside and make room for other Trustees to try a
different direction. I make this suggestion mainly because of the tiny
number of individuals who populate the Board -- not as a personal criticism
of individuals. Stepping aside need not be equated with "guilt" or other
negative judgments; but since there are very few Board seats, it might be
more important for it to forge ahead with different membership, than to
attempt to adjust its internal relationships and deliberative dynamics AND
to adjust the external perceptions (whether accurate or not) of who is
driving the train.

3b. The Board should consider changes to its hiring process. How are
candidates moved through the process? How are they evaluated? Are these
processes respectful of their time and efforts? Good candidates can be
lost, or the evaluation of them can be flawed, if (for instance) the
process is not respectful of their time and effort; if there are changes
during the process in the expectations, or in who will be making decisions
to narrow the field or making the final choice.

3c. The Board should thoroughly and publicly debrief the problems of the
last year or so. I believe this will only be possible if the Board -- which
clearly made some errors in judgment -- is not driving the process. Many
questions remain, not least of which is why Dr. James Heilman was ousted
shortly after being elected with strong community support. I believe an
external entity should be engaged, in a way that makes it clear that their
purpose is to support healing and learning generally, not to appease the
current Board. We have some experience in the movement around this; the
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK, for instance, commissioned a report
by an external entity a few years ago.[3c] Some were happier than others
with that outcome, but if nothing else it establishes a precedent to
consider, and perhaps improve upon. Also, the FDC's strong 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Jimmy Wales]

On 2/26/16 3:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone has
> to be.

No, that isn't going to happen.  There has been some staff and board
advocacy of it - the idea has been floated - but although I took the
idea seriously enough to think about it, I can see that it would not be
the best thing.  Day to day management is not where I can best add value
- never has been.

--Jimbo


___
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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Thyge]

I'm also in strong support of Maggie - no exception this time :)

Thyge

2016-02-26 19:08 GMT+01:00 Sydney Poore :

> I completely agree with Maggie that promoting Katy Love was the smart
> decision. We need someone who can step in and quickly provide strong
> leadership.
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ruslan.
> >
> > Yes, Katy is stepping into the role in a permanent, full-time basis.
> >
> > Determining HR direction is not my role. :) Stating how the Board feels
> > about open hiring is also not my place (and I don't know). But I am happy
> > to share my own opinion.
> >
> > While some roles will and should be filled in an open, public search,
> some
> > roles may be appropriately filled by promoting existing staff with a
> proven
> > track record. The costs of hiring are not small, both in the amount of
> time
> > it takes to recruit and fill a position and the amount of time it takes
> to
> > onboard a new person. The leadership of our resources team needs to be
> > filled quickly. Stability is important in the work they do. And we have a
> > person at hand who has been well trained for the role and successfully
> > worked with community on this basis for years. She is not being hired,
> but
> > promoted - a promotion she has amply earned.
> >
> > That said, the role Katy had previously filled will be an open new hire,
> > with opportunities for all to apply. It'll just take a little bit of time
> > to put the hiring packet together. We are also getting ready to open the
> > search for the replacement for the leadership of Community Engagement,
> > which I have taken in the interim - and for which I hope to see many
> > community applicants.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Maggie
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Ruslan Takayev <
> ruslan.taka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maggie, et al
> > >
> > > Is Katy "stepping into" the role on a full-time, permanent basis?
> > >
> > > I ask this question, as questions I asked relating to the "new, open
> > > approach" towards recruitment at the WMF are yet to be answered[1] and
> I
> > > don't recall there being any advertisements as a call for applications
> to
> > > fill Siko's position.
> > >
> > > TBH, this doesn't sound like a "new, open approach" towards recruitment
> > at
> > > the WMF, but more of the same..."jobs for the boys".
> > >
> > > Comment would be welcome Maggie.
> > >
> > > Warm regards,
> > >
> > > Ruslan Takayev
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081677.html
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, all.
> > > >
> > > > I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the
> > > role
> > > > of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department,
> > picking
> > > up
> > > > the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been
> > with
> > > > the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first
> > > program
> > > > officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m
> > > grateful
> > > > to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to
> > collaborating
> > > > with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
> > > >
> > > > We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> > > > grants program in the weeks ahead.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Maggie
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Maggie Dennis
> > > > Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > > > Director, Support and Safety
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Maggie Dennis
> > Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > Director, Support and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Jimmy Wales]

On 2/26/16 10:39 AM, GorillaWarfare wrote:
> How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the
> rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in
> shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future?

Through email, Google hangout meetings, and in person meetings.

> How do
> you plan to speak to staff members, who have seen many of their coworkers
> leave or be forced out in the last few years?

I'm scheduling 1-on-1 meetings with staff who ask to meet with me.
We'll be in a conference room.  In some cases I'll have particular
questions about things I want to learn more about; in all cases I'll
invite people to say whatever they think will be helpful.

> How do you plan to increase morale among an incredibly demoralized group?

My usual approach is to talk about our mission - it's what we are all
here for and it matters to me more than anything else.  I want to better
understand the outlines of what staff want from their next ED, so that
information can be used to help guide the search.

> But quite
> frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of
> the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I hope
> that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear
> reassurance that you realize this is necessary.

Yes, this is necessary.  I'm continuing to push for more disclosure and
more openness.

> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is
> clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
> if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial,
> or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

I supported it with sadness.  The whole thing is a sad train wreck.

> I would also like to hear a clear statement about what you think can be
> gained from your return to San Francisco.

I hope to be helpful in moving us forward to a better state.  I've not
been as involved as I used to be in recent years, and I want to change that.

In particular, as I have been reflecting on all this, I realized that I
was much closer to Sue and much more involved in her "on boarding" and
learning about our culture.  I think I failed Lila in this regard - we
talked from time to time, but I didn't do enough to help her understand.

I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try.  But I know that for people
new to our world, it's really quite confusing.  You hear a lot of voices
and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones
are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with
little substance.  If you listen to those who are going to complain no
matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.  If you
don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters,
you'll miss important things.  Knowing the difference is... well...
ambiguous even in the best of times.

So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San
Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more
visits in the coming months.  And part of what I want to do is get a
better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have,
so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED,
and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.

--Jimbo


___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Jimmy Wales]

On 2/25/16 2:16 AM, Risker wrote:
> And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying 
> qualified translators to
> support smaller projects...

I'd find a pilot project to do something like this very exciting.



___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Pete Forsyth]

Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing
to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.:

Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid
advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and
effectively with Wikipedia. There is one central point that drives my work:
an ethic of transparency and non-pushy transparency is the main thing that
will lead companies toward engaging in ways that support Wikipedia's goals.
As for the identity and background of editors, their level of experience
with Wikipedia, and who does or does not pay them -- these things are all
important, but they are secondary to the way they approach their work, and
whether/how they express respect toward other Wikipedia editors on an
ongoing basis.

One aspect: working as a Wikipedian in Residence is no different, in
structure, from working for a PR company. I believe the Belfer Center
Wikipedian in Residence proves this point decisively;[1] simply having a
certain kind of title or affiliation is no guarantee that one's efforts
will be compatible with Wikipedia's values, policies, guidelines, or
cultural norms.

On the other hand, my clients routinely exhibit good behavior, and get good
results. Unfortunately I'm not able to disclose my connection with my
clients (who I merely advise -- I don't take any action on their behalf,
either on wiki or by reaching out to editors in private), but I can
disclose a few projects. The most recent case is the film The Hunting
Ground, where the immediate reaction of Wikipedians (including,
influentially, Jimmy Wales) was knee-jerk negative, but upon more careful
investigation Wikipedians identified no substantial problems in how my
client conducted himself. Wikipedians -- myself very much included -- are
not perfect. Making clear, meaningful disclosure of one's role, and
behaving in ways that reflect a genuine respect for the Wikipedia
community, are the key.

I have seen many instances of, as Sarah suggests, a paid editor being "more
persistent" than Wikipedia volunteers, and using that as a significant
tactical advantage. I abhor that practice, and guide my clients explicitly
in avoiding that kind of thing. It's in my clients' interest to avoid doing
that -- not just in Wikipedia's interest. My clients are typically
interested in good long-term results, and they do not want to be saddled
with a poor reputation among Wikipedians. It takes some explaining to help
them see how that plays out in practice -- but that's what they pay me for.
I routinely explain to them how winning a short-term victory through
persistence may have negative long-term impacts, because months or years
down the road it might result in their article getting deleted or massively
changed, or worse, it might land them negative news coverage. They are
generally persuaded by this argument.

I don't think the WMF should pay existing Wikipedians to write or edit
articles, or get involved in identifying which Wikipedians are "better"
than others. I have seen very good Wikipedians make errors in judgment; I
have made errors in judgment myself. I believe a practice of meaningful
transparency is the best approach, because it creates a layer of
accountability, where it's possible for others to notice and address errors
in judgment.

However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need
to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't; the
WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting involved
in paid editing.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
Included for transparency: Founder/Principal of Wiki Strategies
wikistrategies.net

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:49 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>
> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> > wrote:
> >
> > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

[WereSpielChequers]

As a former techie I find phabricator a difficult environment to bug
report in or lobby for a change. I sympathise with anyone as technical
than me or less who ventures there. Sometimes I'm left scratching my
head and wondering whether the closing of a bug or request and
redirecting to one that seems to me unrelated is an honest mistake, a
technically correct but buried in jargon move, or just vandalism.
Relations between techie and non techie are an important area for the
movement to work on. Whether the perceived improvements of the
Tretikova era were down to Lila, to others arriving, departing or
passing through; I hope that in future we try to do better there,
despite the loss of key people and the halving of the frequency of
Wikimania.

On the broader issue of being tech led and narrowing focus; Arguably
one of our biggest problems is that Google, Firefox et al are finding
ways for people to access the content we create without the clutter of
edit buttons, and in some cases attribution and legalese. Think
Mediaviewer for everything, threatening the secret sauce that fuels
our movement. The Knowledge Engine may have been an attempted tech
response to that problem, but whether or not that could have succeeded
with a few extra tens of millions, it was a very expensive tech hammer
for a problem best approached by diplomacy backed up with lawyers. In
narrowing the WMFs focus we wound up using the wrong tool. I've
drafted an alternative approach here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Strategy/Reach#WereSpielChequers

TTFN

Jonathan / WereSpielChequers



> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:31 +0300
> From: Yuri Astrakhan 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?
> Message-ID:

> Oliver, thanks!
>
>> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
> and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
>
> If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
> can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others to do
> it.  They use fundamentally different, scarcely overlapping skill-sets. An
> engineer might go via the "hackathon + demo" route, implementing something
> simple and showing it to gain traction. A non-engineer would start with the
> social aspect first - talking to others if the idea is worth pursuing, how
> hard is it to do, and eventually - convincing others to allocate their
> time/resources to do it. Sometimes an engineer may go the social route
> instead, but it would be very hard for a non-engineer to engage in
> development. Lastly, the "designer" group has an amazing skill-set to
> visually present their full vision rather than the demo, thus often having
> easier time of conveying their thoughts.
>
> In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
> second group? Also, no matter how hard we try, it would be either very
> hard, or very expensive (and not just financially) to force the
> implementers to do an idea they do not believe in. So in a sense, doers
> need to be persuaded first and foremost.
>
> As with any explanation, a picture == 1000 words, so we could promote "idea
> visualizers" - designers who are easily approachable and could help to draw
> up a few sketches of the idea.
>
>
>

___
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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Sydney Poore]

I completely agree with Maggie that promoting Katy Love was the smart
decision. We need someone who can step in and quickly provide strong
leadership.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Maggie Dennis 
wrote:

> Hello, Ruslan.
>
> Yes, Katy is stepping into the role in a permanent, full-time basis.
>
> Determining HR direction is not my role. :) Stating how the Board feels
> about open hiring is also not my place (and I don't know). But I am happy
> to share my own opinion.
>
> While some roles will and should be filled in an open, public search, some
> roles may be appropriately filled by promoting existing staff with a proven
> track record. The costs of hiring are not small, both in the amount of time
> it takes to recruit and fill a position and the amount of time it takes to
> onboard a new person. The leadership of our resources team needs to be
> filled quickly. Stability is important in the work they do. And we have a
> person at hand who has been well trained for the role and successfully
> worked with community on this basis for years. She is not being hired, but
> promoted - a promotion she has amply earned.
>
> That said, the role Katy had previously filled will be an open new hire,
> with opportunities for all to apply. It'll just take a little bit of time
> to put the hiring packet together. We are also getting ready to open the
> search for the replacement for the leadership of Community Engagement,
> which I have taken in the interim - and for which I hope to see many
> community applicants.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Ruslan Takayev 
> wrote:
>
> > Maggie, et al
> >
> > Is Katy "stepping into" the role on a full-time, permanent basis?
> >
> > I ask this question, as questions I asked relating to the "new, open
> > approach" towards recruitment at the WMF are yet to be answered[1] and I
> > don't recall there being any advertisements as a call for applications to
> > fill Siko's position.
> >
> > TBH, this doesn't sound like a "new, open approach" towards recruitment
> at
> > the WMF, but more of the same..."jobs for the boys".
> >
> > Comment would be welcome Maggie.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Ruslan Takayev
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081677.html
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, all.
> > >
> > > I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the
> > role
> > > of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department,
> picking
> > up
> > > the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been
> with
> > > the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first
> > program
> > > officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m
> > grateful
> > > to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to
> collaborating
> > > with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
> > >
> > > We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> > > grants program in the weeks ahead.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Maggie
> > >
> > > P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
> > >
> > > --
> > > Maggie Dennis
> > > Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > > Director, Support and Safety
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Florence Devouard]

Le 26/02/16 16:46, Theo10011 a écrit :

Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone has
to be.


Speechless...


Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get
more difficult after Lila and Arnon. The only question is, if the board
brings back someone or chooses to promote/move someone around. Food for
thought.


Either an interim ED (there are plenty on the market in SF), but I see 
way more reasons not to go down this route than benefits.


Or getting a current (or ex) C level to be interim deputy whilst the 
loong search process delivers its fruits.


Flo



Theo


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, Lodewijk  wrote:


#Iamwithrisker
___
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 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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Gregory Varnum]

I am delighted to see Katy stepping into this role, which IMHO needed to be 
filled urgently.

Congratulations, Katy! You are going to do amazing! :)

-greg (User:Varnent)


> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Maggie Dennis  wrote:
> 
> Hello, Ruslan.
> 
> Yes, Katy is stepping into the role in a permanent, full-time basis.
> 
> Determining HR direction is not my role. :) Stating how the Board feels
> about open hiring is also not my place (and I don't know). But I am happy
> to share my own opinion.
> 
> While some roles will and should be filled in an open, public search, some
> roles may be appropriately filled by promoting existing staff with a proven
> track record. The costs of hiring are not small, both in the amount of time
> it takes to recruit and fill a position and the amount of time it takes to
> onboard a new person. The leadership of our resources team needs to be
> filled quickly. Stability is important in the work they do. And we have a
> person at hand who has been well trained for the role and successfully
> worked with community on this basis for years. She is not being hired, but
> promoted - a promotion she has amply earned.
> 
> That said, the role Katy had previously filled will be an open new hire,
> with opportunities for all to apply. It'll just take a little bit of time
> to put the hiring packet together. We are also getting ready to open the
> search for the replacement for the leadership of Community Engagement,
> which I have taken in the interim - and for which I hope to see many
> community applicants.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Maggie
> 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Ruslan Takayev 
> wrote:
> 
>> Maggie, et al
>> 
>> Is Katy "stepping into" the role on a full-time, permanent basis?
>> 
>> I ask this question, as questions I asked relating to the "new, open
>> approach" towards recruitment at the WMF are yet to be answered[1] and I
>> don't recall there being any advertisements as a call for applications to
>> fill Siko's position.
>> 
>> TBH, this doesn't sound like a "new, open approach" towards recruitment at
>> the WMF, but more of the same..."jobs for the boys".
>> 
>> Comment would be welcome Maggie.
>> 
>> Warm regards,
>> 
>> Ruslan Takayev
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081677.html
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello, all.
>>> 
>>> I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the
>> role
>>> of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking
>> up
>>> the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
>>> the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first
>> program
>>> officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m
>> grateful
>>> to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
>>> with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
>>> 
>>> We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
>>> grants program in the weeks ahead.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Maggie
>>> 
>>> P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Maggie Dennis
>>> Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
>>> Director, Support and Safety
>>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>> ___
>>> 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,
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Maggie Dennis
> Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> 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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, Ruslan.

Yes, Katy is stepping into the role in a permanent, full-time basis.

Determining HR direction is not my role. :) Stating how the Board feels
about open hiring is also not my place (and I don't know). But I am happy
to share my own opinion.

While some roles will and should be filled in an open, public search, some
roles may be appropriately filled by promoting existing staff with a proven
track record. The costs of hiring are not small, both in the amount of time
it takes to recruit and fill a position and the amount of time it takes to
onboard a new person. The leadership of our resources team needs to be
filled quickly. Stability is important in the work they do. And we have a
person at hand who has been well trained for the role and successfully
worked with community on this basis for years. She is not being hired, but
promoted - a promotion she has amply earned.

That said, the role Katy had previously filled will be an open new hire,
with opportunities for all to apply. It'll just take a little bit of time
to put the hiring packet together. We are also getting ready to open the
search for the replacement for the leadership of Community Engagement,
which I have taken in the interim - and for which I hope to see many
community applicants.

Best,

Maggie

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Ruslan Takayev 
wrote:

> Maggie, et al
>
> Is Katy "stepping into" the role on a full-time, permanent basis?
>
> I ask this question, as questions I asked relating to the "new, open
> approach" towards recruitment at the WMF are yet to be answered[1] and I
> don't recall there being any advertisements as a call for applications to
> fill Siko's position.
>
> TBH, this doesn't sound like a "new, open approach" towards recruitment at
> the WMF, but more of the same..."jobs for the boys".
>
> Comment would be welcome Maggie.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Ruslan Takayev
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081677.html
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the
> role
> > of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking
> up
> > the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
> > the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first
> program
> > officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m
> grateful
> > to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
> > with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
> >
> > We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> > grants program in the weeks ahead.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Maggie
> >
> > P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
> >
> > --
> > Maggie Dennis
> > Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > Director, Support and Safety
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Theo10011]

Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim bosssomeone has
to be.

Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get
more difficult after Lila and Arnon. The only question is, if the board
brings back someone or chooses to promote/move someone around. Food for
thought.

Theo


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, Lodewijk  wrote:

> #Iamwithrisker
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

>
> Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies as well as your friends. (And in
> the real world, we are rarely all one or the other.)
>
> -- brion



Yes, that I can see, and well said.

Andreas
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-26 16:23, Risker wrote:

Andreas, I think you are being unfair here.  Whatever anyone's personal
opinion of Jimmy, the bottom line is that WMF staff have expressed that 
the

Board has not been listening to them.  Jimmy is a board member.  He's
directly saying "I'm coming to listen to you".  And he's being 
transparent

about it,  by sharing his plan publicly on this list and perhaps
elsewhere.  That pretty much sounds as though he's being responsive.  
Now,
none of us knows what the outcome will be, and I don't think it would 
be
appropriate for any of us to speculate on how various staff members 
will
choose to interact given this direct opportunity.  Other board members 
live

in the immediate area and maybe they too will attend (and maybe not, we
don't know).  This is a very short notice attendance, and since many 
board

members have responsibilities to their employers, families, and other
activities, they may not be able to drop everything and jump on a 
plane,

even if they want to.

Myself, I'd suggest that staff take advantage of this opportunity, with 
the
hope of having a more responsive interaction than the November meeting. 
 It

is in *everyone's* interest that all of the groups within the Wikimedia
community start moving toward better integration, communication,
transparency, and  carving out a shared vision.  This is a step. It's 
only

a step.



Absolutely. Some people may have battleground mentality and wish the 
whole board to resign immediately, but generally it is a good 
opportunity to get out of the trenches.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Lodewijk]

#Iamwithrisker

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Andreas, I think you are being unfair here.  Whatever anyone's personal
> opinion of Jimmy, the bottom line is that WMF staff have expressed that the
> Board has not been listening to them.  Jimmy is a board member.  He's
> directly saying "I'm coming to listen to you".  And he's being transparent
> about it,  by sharing his plan publicly on this list and perhaps
> elsewhere.  That pretty much sounds as though he's being responsive.  Now,
> none of us knows what the outcome will be, and I don't think it would be
> appropriate for any of us to speculate on how various staff members will
> choose to interact given this direct opportunity.  Other board members live
> in the immediate area and maybe they too will attend (and maybe not, we
> don't know).  This is a very short notice attendance, and since many board
> members have responsibilities to their employers, families, and other
> activities, they may not be able to drop everything and jump on a plane,
> even if they want to.
>
> Myself, I'd suggest that staff take advantage of this opportunity, with the
> hope of having a more responsive interaction than the November meeting.  It
> is in *everyone's* interest that all of the groups within the Wikimedia
> community start moving toward better integration, communication,
> transparency, and  carving out a shared vision.  This is a step. It's only
> a step.
>
> As to this hypothetical Wikia connection, it's a speculation by Fae (and
> only  Fae, as far as I can see), who has not provided any evidence that his
> statement is based on some known information.  It may come as a surprise to
> a lot of people, but Wikia's software has been increasingly diverging from
> the MediaWiki we all use on Wikimedia projects, and they already have
> better inter-wiki search than WMF projects have.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 10:02, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Brion,
> >
> > I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point
> of
> > "coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge
> Engine
> > grant agreement was released, insisted,
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > 'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> > proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
> "be
> > google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> > serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> > proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
> total
> > lie.'
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very
> > words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single
> > journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days
> from
> > the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the
> > Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that
> > there really was a search engine project.[1]
> >
> > How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be
> > shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of
> other
> > board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it
> > takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy
> Wales
> > were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).
> >
> > So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant
> agreements,
> > had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were
> > about, had never even bothered to look at them?
> >
> > In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine
> > project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy
> Wales
> > was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member
> informed
> > him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?
> >
> > "Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!
> >
> > Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the
> truth,
> > and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck
> by
> > temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or
> > suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely
> > went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars
> spreading
> > "bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before
> > shooting his mouth off?
> >
> > What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is
> > saying?
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia
> > have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia
> > among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ=15365968=15365951
> >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Risker]

Andreas, I think you are being unfair here.  Whatever anyone's personal
opinion of Jimmy, the bottom line is that WMF staff have expressed that the
Board has not been listening to them.  Jimmy is a board member.  He's
directly saying "I'm coming to listen to you".  And he's being transparent
about it,  by sharing his plan publicly on this list and perhaps
elsewhere.  That pretty much sounds as though he's being responsive.  Now,
none of us knows what the outcome will be, and I don't think it would be
appropriate for any of us to speculate on how various staff members will
choose to interact given this direct opportunity.  Other board members live
in the immediate area and maybe they too will attend (and maybe not, we
don't know).  This is a very short notice attendance, and since many board
members have responsibilities to their employers, families, and other
activities, they may not be able to drop everything and jump on a plane,
even if they want to.

Myself, I'd suggest that staff take advantage of this opportunity, with the
hope of having a more responsive interaction than the November meeting.  It
is in *everyone's* interest that all of the groups within the Wikimedia
community start moving toward better integration, communication,
transparency, and  carving out a shared vision.  This is a step. It's only
a step.

As to this hypothetical Wikia connection, it's a speculation by Fae (and
only  Fae, as far as I can see), who has not provided any evidence that his
statement is based on some known information.  It may come as a surprise to
a lot of people, but Wikia's software has been increasingly diverging from
the MediaWiki we all use on Wikimedia projects, and they already have
better inter-wiki search than WMF projects have.

Risker/Anne

On 26 February 2016 at 10:02, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Brion,
>
> I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point of
> "coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge Engine
> grant agreement was released, insisted,
>
> ---o0o---
>
> 'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie.'
>
> ---o0o---
>
> When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very
> words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single
> journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days from
> the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the
> Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that
> there really was a search engine project.[1]
>
> How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be
> shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of other
> board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it
> takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy Wales
> were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).
>
> So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant agreements,
> had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were
> about, had never even bothered to look at them?
>
> In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine
> project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy Wales
> was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member informed
> him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?
>
> "Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!
>
> Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the truth,
> and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck by
> temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or
> suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely
> went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars spreading
> "bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before
> shooting his mouth off?
>
> What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is
> saying?
>
> Andreas
>
> P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia
> have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia
> among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ=15365968=15365951
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber 
> wrote:
>
> > Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time
> > to STOP talking.
> >
> > I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk
> > directly with Jimmy and with any 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Brion Vibber]

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Brion,
>
> I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point of
> "coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge Engine
> grant agreement was released, insisted,


Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies as well as your friends. (And in
the real world, we are rarely all one or the other.)

-- brion






>
> ---o0o---
>
> 'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
> proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
> google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
> serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
> proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
> lie.'
>
> ---o0o---
>
> When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very
> words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single
> journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days from
> the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the
> Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that
> there really was a search engine project.[1]
>
> How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be
> shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of other
> board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it
> takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy Wales
> were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).
>
> So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant agreements,
> had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were
> about, had never even bothered to look at them?
>
> In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine
> project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy Wales
> was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member informed
> him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?
>
> "Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!
>
> Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the truth,
> and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck by
> temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or
> suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely
> went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars spreading
> "bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before
> shooting his mouth off?
>
> What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is
> saying?
>
> Andreas
>
> P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia
> have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia
> among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ=15365968=15365951
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber  >
> wrote:
>
> > Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time
> > to STOP talking.
> >
> > I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk
> > directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to
> > plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm
> > very much hoping for the best.
> >
> > I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well
> > that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this
> > is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously
> > explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next
> > time".
> >
> > Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to
> > some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make
> positive
> > changes together.
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jimmy, et al
> > >
> > > As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the
> removal
> > > of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put
> > out
> > > there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the
> > > state of affairs at the WMF.
> > >
> > > Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have
> done
> > > all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.
> > >
> > > Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to
> staff
> > > concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.
> > >
> > > I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a
> "knight
> > in
> > > shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.
> > >
> > > Warm regards,
> > >
> > > Ruslan 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Denny Vrandecic]

In order to avoid misunderstandings, would you please clarify what you mean
with "fully vetted"? This term can mean so many different things, and I
want to make sure.
On Feb 26, 2016 05:32, "Comet styles"  wrote:

> I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's
> incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully
> vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get
> someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire
> someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is
> thrust into the position without the know-how?...
>
> The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock
> film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the
> incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops
> here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm
> sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..
>
> Cometstyles
>
> On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> > There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow,
> > per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?comment_id=963762980338200_comment_id=963831903664641_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R3%22%7D
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> >> 2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young :
> >> > I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff,
> not
> >> on
> >> > the staff, and not on Lila.
> >> > I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there
> is
> >> an
> >> > enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in
> moving
> >> > forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
> >> > onward.
> >>
> >> Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF
> >> and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but
> >> may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of
> >> the very constructive side conversations.
> >>
> >> Warmly,
> >>
> >> Erik
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> > 
>
>
> --
> Cometstyles
>
> ___
> 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Andreas Kolbe]

Brion,

I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point of
"coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge Engine
grant agreement was released, insisted,

---o0o---

'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be
google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total
lie.'

---o0o---

When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very
words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single
journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days from
the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the
Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that
there really was a search engine project.[1]

How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be
shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of other
board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it
takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy Wales
were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).

So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant agreements,
had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were
about, had never even bothered to look at them?

In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine
project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy Wales
was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member informed
him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?

"Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!

Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the truth,
and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck by
temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or
suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely
went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars spreading
"bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before
shooting his mouth off?

What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is
saying?

Andreas

P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia
have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia
among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ=15365968=15365951

Andreas

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber 
wrote:

> Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time
> to STOP talking.
>
> I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk
> directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to
> plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm
> very much hoping for the best.
>
> I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well
> that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this
> is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously
> explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next
> time".
>
> Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to
> some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make positive
> changes together.
>
> -- brion
>
> On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev 
> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, et al
> >
> > As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the removal
> > of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put
> out
> > there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the
> > state of affairs at the WMF.
> >
> > Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have done
> > all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.
> >
> > Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to staff
> > concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.
> >
> > I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a "knight
> in
> > shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Ruslan Takayev
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a
> > > queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).
> > >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with a
> > > lot of you.  I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so
> > > I'll be sure to set 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa?  From the post-mortem on
> Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a $100K WMF grant. This included
> paying for the event coordinator, which is now budgeted separately. That
> was for the finest event one could hope for.
>

Yes, in Haifa we got $100K from the WMF (and $100K for scholarships handled
by the WMF). The total event costs were $270K. The majority of the budget
was raised by scholarships.


Ellie - "Project management from WMF" means you?
___
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] Call for posters, discussions and trainings at Wikimania opened

[Ginevra Sanvitale]

(Sorry for the crossposting)

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are
officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference
wiki:

https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things
which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will
surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the
wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that
we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in
order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted
proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages
on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers,
of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas!


Ginevra

Wikimania 2016 Programme Committee



___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Comet styles]

I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's
incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully
vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get
someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire
someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is
thrust into the position without the know-how?...

The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock
film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the
incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops
here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm
sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..

Cometstyles

On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow,
> per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?comment_id=963762980338200_comment_id=963831903664641_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R3%22%7D
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
>> 2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young :
>> > I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not
>> on
>> > the staff, and not on Lila.
>> > I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is
>> an
>> > enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving
>> > forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
>> > onward.
>>
>> Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF
>> and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but
>> may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of
>> the very constructive side conversations.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Erik
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
> 


-- 
Cometstyles

___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Pharos]

This classic science fiction novel comes to mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

And a shout-out to User:Daniel The Monk, our resident NYC Monastapedian :)

Thanks,
Pharos

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Ed Saperia  wrote:

> A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> >
> > I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying
> them
> > cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> > food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> > workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> >
> > Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> >> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> We're
> >> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting
> itself
> >> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this
> by
> >> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >>
> >> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> >> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope
> to
> >> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> >> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> >> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <
> pute...@mccme.ru>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
>  - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
> with
>  WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> >>> paid
>  arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> >>> and I
>  was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
> >>> very
>  unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
> >>> goal
>  was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
>  efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
>  defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the
> quality
>  loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> >> paid
>  (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have
> to
> >>> do
>  the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> 
> 
>  ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> >>> Wikipedia.
> >>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> >>> okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> >>> institution that employs them.
> >>>
> >>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> >> because
> >>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> >> being
> >>> more persistent).
> >>>
> >>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> >>> articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> >>> problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> >> thinking
> >>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
> >>>
> >>> Sarah​
> >>> ___
> >>> 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,
> >>> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Goodman
> >>
> >> DGG at the enWP
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > ___
> > 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] I am going to San Francisco

[Oliver Keyes]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:39 AM, GorillaWarfare
 wrote:
> I would be curious to hear precisely what you hope to accomplish from your
> trip to San Francisco. How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the
> rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in
> shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future? How do
> you plan to speak to staff members, who have seen many of their coworkers
> leave or be forced out in the last few years? How do you plan to increase
> morale among an incredibly demoralized group?
>
> I too hope that your return will be marked by "careful listening and
> thoughtful consideration" that Brion Vibber describes, not to mention
> strong actions resulting from what you learn during your trip. But quite
> frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of
> the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I hope
> that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear
> reassurance that you realize this is necessary.
>
> There have been many things that have not impressed me recently: how the
> Wikimedia Foundation chose to handle the lack of transparency surrounding
> WMF actions (even once they were leaked), how the Board has handled the
> past unrest surrounding the Executive Director and senior leadership,
> communication surrounding James Heilman's removal... the list really goes
> on and on.
>
> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is
> clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
> if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial,
> or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.
>

I would very much like to know the answer to this question, in
particular. Any conversation with staff should be based first and
foremost on honesty, after everything that has happened.

> I would also like to hear a clear statement about what you think can be
> gained from your return to San Francisco.
>
> Thank you,
> Molly White
> User:GorillaWarfare
> English Wikipedia community member
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Jane Darnell]

We could help them by making Wikipedia pages about registration agencies,
European immigration laws, and/or uploading sample forms that they could
translate into their own languages.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in
> refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often
> well educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them
> something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents the
> onset of a lot of mental health issues.
>
> Obviously this is not easy but we do not pay them directly but still make a
> real difference.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying
> them
> > cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> > food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> > workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> >
> > Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> > > altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> > We're
> > > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting
> > itself
> > > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this
> > by
> > > while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> > > freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope
> > to
> > > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> > > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information
> that
> > > other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to
> compromise.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <
> > pute...@mccme.ru>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
> > with
> > > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they
> were
> > > > paid
> > > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give
> up,
> > > > and I
> > > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also
> > had
> > > > very
> > > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose
> > only
> > > > goal
> > > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if
> somebody
> > > > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the
> > quality
> > > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who
> is
> > > paid
> > > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and
> have
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more
> > persistent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > > > Wikipedia.
> > > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded
> as
> > > > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about
> the
> > > > institution that employs them.
> > > >
> > > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> > > because
> > > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> > > being
> > > > more persistent).
> > > >
> > > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that
> want
> > > > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > > > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> > > thinking
> > > > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> > > >
> > > > Sarah​
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Goodman
> > >
> > > DGG at the enWP
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Brion Vibber]

Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time
to STOP talking.

I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk
directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to
plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm
very much hoping for the best.

I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well
that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this
is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously
explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next
time".

Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to
some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make positive
changes together.

-- brion

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev 
wrote:

> Jimmy, et al
>
> As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the removal
> of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put out
> there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the
> state of affairs at the WMF.
>
> Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have done
> all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.
>
> Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to staff
> concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.
>
> I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a "knight in
> shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Ruslan Takayev
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales  > wrote:
>
> > Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a
> > queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with a
> > lot of you.  I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so
> > I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.
> >
> > By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope is
> > that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity.  And
> > for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from you,
> > to listen and learn.
> >
> > Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the Foundation,
> > said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to the
> > conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis, and
> > hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful
> > consideration that I remember from 2001."
> >
> > That's what I want, too.  I want to listen and I want to help the board
> > make good decisions.
> >
> > For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on the
> > planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together.  It's
> > what keeps us going even in difficult times.  But my view is that it
> > doesn't have to be difficult times.  Working at the WMF should be - and
> > will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best
> > colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the joy
> > of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.
> >
> > I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I
> > already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to meet.
> >
> > I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so
> > depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like to
> > get a good overview.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Fæ]

Enjoy your trip Jimmy. It's been about 20 years since I last travelled
there. Let me know if you want me to join you for a strategic chat.

Please consider declaring your conflicts of interest and conflicts of
loyalty more publicly, or changing your role away from being a voting
WMF trustee, say by becoming a respected WMF board advisor.

You have made many defensive remarks in public this year in advance of
Lila's resignation about the previously secret Knowledge Engine /
Search Engine project, yet you have not explained how ethically you
could at the same time be part of the WMF board decision to support
funding the project when Wikia would be a direct beneficiary of its
development, along with yourself benefiting financially.

As this is a matter of board governance, I am copying the board
members in on this email. Hopefully at least one of your fellow
trustees will want to ask some questions and publish some answers,
eventually.

Thanks,
Fae


On 26 February 2016 at 10:39, GorillaWarfare
 wrote:
> I would be curious to hear precisely what you hope to accomplish from your
> trip to San Francisco. How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the
> rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in
> shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future? How do
> you plan to speak to staff members, who have seen many of their coworkers
> leave or be forced out in the last few years? How do you plan to increase
> morale among an incredibly demoralized group?
>
> I too hope that your return will be marked by "careful listening and
> thoughtful consideration" that Brion Vibber describes, not to mention
> strong actions resulting from what you learn during your trip. But quite
> frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of
> the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I hope
> that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear
> reassurance that you realize this is necessary.
>
> There have been many things that have not impressed me recently: how the
> Wikimedia Foundation chose to handle the lack of transparency surrounding
> WMF actions (even once they were leaked), how the Board has handled the
> past unrest surrounding the Executive Director and senior leadership,
> communication surrounding James Heilman's removal... the list really goes
> on and on.
>
> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is
> clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
> if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial,
> or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.
>
> I would also like to hear a clear statement about what you think can be
> gained from your return to San Francisco.
>
> Thank you,
> Molly White
> User:GorillaWarfare
> English Wikipedia community member
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Pierre-Selim]

Ruslan it's different. Way different I would say, being
head of staff is the role of the ED (when not steping down).

A board member messing with that is doing something bad
for the organization. If a board member is not happy with
the result of the ED, his option is simple, talk about it with
the board and act within the board.

Now, When an ED is stepping down, the board has to step up
during the transition.

Finding the limit of your mandate as board member is not easy
this is why lots of organizations write Board codex, board guidance
book, etc.

2016-02-26 11:16 GMT+01:00 Ruslan Takayev :

> Jimmy, et al
>
> As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the removal
> of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put out
> there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the
> state of affairs at the WMF.
>
> Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have done
> all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.
>
> Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to staff
> concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.
>
> I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a "knight in
> shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Ruslan Takayev
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
> > Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a
> > queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with a
> > lot of you.  I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so
> > I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.
> >
> > By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope is
> > that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity.  And
> > for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from you,
> > to listen and learn.
> >
> > Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the Foundation,
> > said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to the
> > conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis, and
> > hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful
> > consideration that I remember from 2001."
> >
> > That's what I want, too.  I want to listen and I want to help the board
> > make good decisions.
> >
> > For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on the
> > planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together.  It's
> > what keeps us going even in difficult times.  But my view is that it
> > doesn't have to be difficult times.  Working at the WMF should be - and
> > will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best
> > colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the joy
> > of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.
> >
> > I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I
> > already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to meet.
> >
> > I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so
> > depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like to
> > get a good overview.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 




-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
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] The right time is now!

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-26 00:16, Sydney Poore wrote:
The idea of a non-voting seat for a non C-level employee is something 
that

I could support.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration



Actually, it could be more observers (non-voting seats) than just one; 
this could also help solving the diversity issue.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[GorillaWarfare]

I would be curious to hear precisely what you hope to accomplish from your
trip to San Francisco. How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the
rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in
shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future? How do
you plan to speak to staff members, who have seen many of their coworkers
leave or be forced out in the last few years? How do you plan to increase
morale among an incredibly demoralized group?

I too hope that your return will be marked by "careful listening and
thoughtful consideration" that Brion Vibber describes, not to mention
strong actions resulting from what you learn during your trip. But quite
frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of
the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I hope
that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear
reassurance that you realize this is necessary.

There have been many things that have not impressed me recently: how the
Wikimedia Foundation chose to handle the lack of transparency surrounding
WMF actions (even once they were leaked), how the Board has handled the
past unrest surrounding the Executive Director and senior leadership,
communication surrounding James Heilman's removal... the list really goes
on and on.

I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is
clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know
if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial,
or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

I would also like to hear a clear statement about what you think can be
gained from your return to San Francisco.

Thank you,
Molly White
User:GorillaWarfare
English Wikipedia community member
___
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] I am going to San Francisco

[Ruslan Takayev]

Jimmy, et al

As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the removal
of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put out
there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the
state of affairs at the WMF.

Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have done
all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.

Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to staff
concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.

I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a "knight in
shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a
> queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with a
> lot of you.  I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so
> I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.
>
> By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope is
> that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity.  And
> for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from you,
> to listen and learn.
>
> Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the Foundation,
> said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to the
> conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis, and
> hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful
> consideration that I remember from 2001."
>
> That's what I want, too.  I want to listen and I want to help the board
> make good decisions.
>
> For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on the
> planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together.  It's
> what keeps us going even in difficult times.  But my view is that it
> doesn't have to be difficult times.  Working at the WMF should be - and
> will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best
> colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the joy
> of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.
>
> I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I
> already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to meet.
>
> I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so
> depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like to
> get a good overview.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in
refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often
well educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them
something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents the
onset of a lot of mental health issues.

Obviously this is not easy but we do not pay them directly but still make a
real difference.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 26 February 2016 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
>
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> > altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> We're
> > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting
> itself
> > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this
> by
> > while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >
> > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> > freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope
> to
> > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> > other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <
> pute...@mccme.ru>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
> with
> > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> > > paid
> > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> > > and I
> > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also
> had
> > > very
> > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose
> only
> > > goal
> > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the
> quality
> > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> > paid
> > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have
> to
> > > do
> > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more
> persistent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> > > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> > > institution that employs them.
> > >
> > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> > because
> > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> > being
> > > more persistent).
> > >
> > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> > > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> > thinking
> > > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> > >
> > > Sarah​
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Goodman
> >
> > DGG at the enWP
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Actually I went last year to a winter retreat in Plum Village, a
mindfulness monastery in southern France, and the focus was cultivating
civility (loving-kindness they call it) and inner peace. I thought, well,
if besides of that one could contribute free knowledge here I would join
right away :)

I wonder if I would be the only one :P

Cheers,
Micru

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> With vows of civility and NPOV
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ed Saperia
> Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 10:51 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization
>
> A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> >
> > I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying
> > them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place
> > to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs
> > work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> >
> > Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> >> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> >> We're supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by
> >> letting itself be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes
> to achieve this by
> >> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >>
> >> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> >> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore
> >> hope to achieve the positive good of providing objective information
> >> on encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not
> >> information that other organizations want people to read.  We have no
> need to compromise.
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
>  - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
>  with WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because
>  they were
> >>> paid
>  arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give
>  up,
> >>> and I
>  was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also
>  had
> >>> very
>  unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose
>  only
> >>> goal
>  was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
>  efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if
>  somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win,
>  and the quality loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute
>  between a user who is
> >> paid
>  (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and
>  have to
> >>> do
>  the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> 
> 
>  ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> >>> Wikipedia.
> >>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded
> >>> as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles
> >>> about the institution that employs them.
> >>>
> >>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> >> because
> >>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> >> being
> >>> more persistent).
> >>>
> >>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that
> >>> want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all
> >>> the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So
> >>> my
> >> thinking
> >>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
> >>>
> >>> Sarah​
> >>> ___
> >>> 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,
> >>> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Goodman
> >>
> >> DGG at the enWP
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> >> ___
> >> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Peter Southwood]

With vows of civility and NPOV

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ed Saperia
Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 10:51 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> 
> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying 
> them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place 
> to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs 
> work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> 
> Regards,
> Micru
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>> 
>> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation 
>> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. 
>> We're supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by 
>> letting itself be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to 
>> achieve this by
>> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>> 
>> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people 
>> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore 
>> hope to achieve the positive good of providing objective information 
>> on encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not 
>> information that other organizations want people to read.  We have no need 
>> to compromise.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
 - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates 
 with WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because 
 they were
>>> paid
 arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give 
 up,
>>> and I
 was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also 
 had
>>> very
 unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose 
 only
>>> goal
 was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality, 
 efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if 
 somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, 
 and the quality loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute 
 between a user who is
>> paid
 (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and 
 have to
>>> do
 the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
 
 
 ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
>>> Wikipedia.
>>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded 
>>> as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles 
>>> about the institution that employs them.
>>> 
>>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
>> because
>>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
>> being
>>> more persistent).
>>> 
>>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that 
>>> want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all 
>>> the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So 
>>> my
>> thinking
>>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
>>> 
>>> Sarah​
>>> ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Goodman
>> 
>> DGG at the enWP
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Jane Darnell]

Healthcare!!!

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
>
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> > altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> We're
> > supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting
> itself
> > be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this
> by
> > while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >
> > Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> > freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope
> to
> > achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> > encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> > other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <
> pute...@mccme.ru>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
> with
> > > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> > > paid
> > > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> > > and I
> > > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also
> had
> > > very
> > > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose
> only
> > > goal
> > > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the
> quality
> > > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> > paid
> > > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have
> to
> > > do
> > > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more
> persistent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> > > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> > > institution that employs them.
> > >
> > > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> > because
> > > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> > being
> > > more persistent).
> > >
> > > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> > > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> > thinking
> > > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> > >
> > > Sarah​
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Goodman
> >
> > DGG at the enWP
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Ed Saperia]

A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> 
> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> 
> Regards,
> Micru
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>> 
>> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
>> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
>> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
>> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
>> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>> 
>> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
>> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
>> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
>> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
>> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
 - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
 WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
>>> paid
 arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
>>> and I
 was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
>>> very
 unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
>>> goal
 was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
 efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
 defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
 loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
>> paid
 (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
>>> do
 the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
 
 
 ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
>>> Wikipedia.
>>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
>>> okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
>>> institution that employs them.
>>> 
>>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
>> because
>>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
>> being
>>> more persistent).
>>> 
>>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
>>> articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
>>> problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
>> thinking
>>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
>>> 
>>> Sarah​
>>> ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Goodman
>> 
>> DGG at the enWP
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Would it be an acceptable compromise?

Regards,
Micru

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>
> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> > wrote:
> >
> > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> > paid
> > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> > and I
> > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
> > very
> > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
> > goal
> > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
> > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> paid
> > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
> > do
> > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > Wikipedia.
> > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> > institution that employs them.
> >
> > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> because
> > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> being
> > more persistent).
> >
> > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> thinking
> > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> >
> > Sarah​
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

[Ruslan Takayev]

Maggie, et al

Is Katy "stepping into" the role on a full-time, permanent basis?

I ask this question, as questions I asked relating to the "new, open
approach" towards recruitment at the WMF are yet to be answered[1] and I
don't recall there being any advertisements as a call for applications to
fill Siko's position.

TBH, this doesn't sound like a "new, open approach" towards recruitment at
the WMF, but more of the same..."jobs for the boys".

Comment would be welcome Maggie.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081677.html


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Maggie Dennis 
wrote:

> Hello, all.
>
> I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the role
> of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking up
> the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
> the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first program
> officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m grateful
> to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
> with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
>
> We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
> grants program in the weeks ahead.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maggie
>
> P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Director, Support and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> 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,