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

[Pete Forsyth]

Keegan and Oliver (again),

I've communicated a bit with Keegan off list, and I appreciate the feedback
from both of you. I intended to say something conciliatory, I didn't put
much thought into how I put it, and I achieved the opposite effect. I'm
sorry. I should have known better.

For whatever it's worth, I don't presume to speak for anybody, and I don't
have any illusion that my personal communication gives me special insights
unavailable to others. I can see how my message would give that impression
though.

What I DO believe is that currently, we have stronger lines of
communication among a lot of people than we're used to, and I think that
can be a positive force in both finding common cause and hearing individual
voices. Suggesting that anything would compensate for somebody not actively
representing themselves, though, was a mistake. The two points don't really
connect, and I shouldn't have tried.

Anyhow -- this thread was never meant to be about me, so I'll leave it at
that. (The subject line I chose was bad as well -- it puts way too much
emphasis on "my" role.) If either of you, or anybody else who was offended
by my words, feels that I'm still missing something, please let me know
offlist.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> +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,
> 
>
___
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] 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 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] 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 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, 

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 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] 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, 

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] 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,