Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > On 02/21/2016 11:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> So, if you speak of structurally connecting *open* sources, as a basis for >> smart editing tools, you seem to be saying that such copyrighted yet >> openly >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On 02/21/2016 11:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: So, if you speak of structurally connecting *open* sources, as a basis for smart editing tools, you seem to be saying that such copyrighted yet openly accessible sources, as well as all genuinely paywalled sources, should be excluded from these

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

As an employee of the WMF and a long-time Wikimedian, I strongly agree with Brion. Lila, I find your message completely deaf to the real concerns that staff have been raising for many months. It seems to imply that the turmoil and heartache we're suffering are not products of poor leadership, but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi Kat This is good. But why not to look for a CTO? Designing a CTO's profile and putting it in a CEO's profile is a big challenge. This can happen but means also to have a big change of the vision of WMF. Kind regards Il 22/Feb/2016 19:12, "Kat Walsh" ha scritto: > On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Thank you as well, Kat. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Kat Walsh wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> One phrase I see used quite often is "sometimes we need to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Thank you, Phoebe. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:06 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> Lila's vision here clearly calls the change campaign out as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, George Herbert wrote: > One phrase I see used quite often is "sometimes we need to break a few eggs." > For those who are not native american english speakers, this is referring to > the need to move beyond shifting things around into

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, George Herbert wrote: > Lila's vision here clearly calls the change campaign out as having explicitly > intended to break eggs. > > It further suggests strongly that this was the Board of Trustees' intention > in hiring her, and that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > Is it time for a #IamwithVibber tag now? :) > a > It might be time to consider just promoting Brion or something? (as deputy > or head of engineering). There is no one the community would trust more on > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Is it time for a #IamwithVibber tag now? :) It might be time to consider just promoting Brion or something? (as deputy or head of engineering). There is no one the community would trust more on the engineering needs of WMF. And from the looks of it, he does have the support of staff and isn't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi All, The core problem (as several times before) seems to me that all these broad discussions are held AFTER things went wrong or a specific meta decision got out of hand. Obviously the current transparency of or even the current decision-making process in its entirety isn't appropiate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hey everyone, i'd really like to reaffirm what Àlex wrote in his mail: let's start with people, not technology. When i read this in Lila's message: > Many companies copy our knowledge into their own databases and > present it inside their interfaces. While this supports wider > dissemination, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the > outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED > on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I think everyone should remember that sarcasm, and tone in general, frequently do not come through across the wires, as it were. For that matter, please, stay civil. I'm happy to report that I haven't had to moderate anyone, yet, but I think we can all appreciate the current circumstances.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Danny, four months ago the board decided to give her time. The vocal staff have responded by rejecting that. The board needs to reconsider, in light of that response, and either confirm their commitment to the ED or come to a different resolution. Soon, preferably. On 23 Feb 2016 12:09 am, "Danny

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

> Does anyone know when the board is meeting (has it met) to resolve this? I > don't want them to rush a poorly thought-through decision but, after a > while, inaction in a human crisis like this becomes negligent abuse. > Yeah, that happened four months ago. It's going great so far.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies shortcomings on the part of one or more of her staff or former staff - and if WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

> Why we’ve changed Lila, This is either the 3rd (or 4th?) semi-conflicting grand statement of your overall thinking for the WMF that you have shared. If it’s not that, it reads like an explanation for how you have been thinking about the WMF since you started. If the latter, why have we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Dear Lila, I woke up this morning and as usual I went for my WMF email with my coffee. I woke up to read my ED implying that the employee discontent[1] was due to, amongst other things: > We’ve asked for adjustment in attitude towards work, our responsibilities and > professional

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, First of all thank you Lila for making such a clear statement on how you see the movement. I would like to go to the basics. I do agree with your vision of what we did 15 years ago and could agree about the changing environment and that we need to constantly rethink ourselves in this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Lila, This is a pretty infuriating email, full of inaccuracies, FUD and unnecessary platitudes. We're in need of answers and actions, not essays. After such a failed record as an ED, I would expect you to acknowledge that we have indeed changed, but for the worst. Then, learn from your mistakes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Le 22/02/16 11:03, George Herbert a écrit : I have been letting Lila's mail stew in my brain for a little while, and I am going to respond now having had time to think it over. I apologize in advance for the length. There are three main sections to my analysis and argument, and then some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I have been letting Lila's mail stew in my brain for a little while, and I am going to respond now having had time to think it over. I apologize in advance for the length. There are three main sections to my analysis and argument, and then some concluding points and implications. First -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I think the impact of HHVM rollout hasn't tested on new user survival rate [1] they might become very active later. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor Best On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM Ori Livneh wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, This explanation is really appreciated and it helps to understand a point of view. The problem is that it's "a" point of view. We can define it as a "change management". In this explanation are missed some points. The first point is the mapping of the stakeholders and to define what the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > On 22/02/16 18:45, Erik Moeller wrote: > > The numbers for "very active editors" appear to have stabilized at a > > slightly higher level than previously. I can't find any firm > > conclusion on what has caused this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-22 1:26 GMT-08:00 Tim Starling : > I don't think it is plausible, given the data collected at: > > > > 25,000 new users were put into an HHVM bucket, so the whole site was > twice as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On 22/02/16 18:45, Erik Moeller wrote: > The numbers for "very active editors" appear to have stabilized at a > slightly higher level than previously. I can't find any firm > conclusion on what has caused this in Wikimedia's public > communications, but the HHVM rollout, long-planned and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, On 02/21/2016 04:22 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > The world is not standing still. It will not wait for us to finish our > internal battles and struggles. Time is our most precious commodity. No, it's not. -- Legoktm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > In practice this means I demanded that we set standards for staff > communication with our community to be professional and respectful. It > meant transitioning people, shutting down pet projects, promoting some but > not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > > If your contention is that tech supports you as a silent majority, I have > strong doubts that this is the case. I think the silent majority of the WMF employees, tech or not, expressed their opinion quite clearly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi Lila, Thanks for the message. I won't go into this and the other aspects of the current situation in detail -- I think this is an important conversation primarily with current staff and active community members --, but I'll respond to a couple points that I think are important, and for which I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On 22/02/16 11:22, Lila Tretikov wrote: > We started this transformation, but as we move > forward we are facing a crisis that is rooted in our choice of direction. Not really. The crisis has always been about means, not ends. I keep hearing people say "this is a good idea, but why did it have to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:14 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: > brion, > > there is 10'000 km between you and me so i only read mails on this > list. would you mind detailing what you expect from your CEO to > trigger "she benefits me"? > I'd say these would help a lot: *

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

brion, there is 10'000 km between you and me so i only read mails on this list. would you mind detailing what you expect from your CEO to trigger "she benefits me"? best, rupert On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > Lila, a few notes. > > First, many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Please consider, Gerard: Maybe it is time you stopped explaining to us all what is and isn't the point. A. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > > It is not that I am not with Brion. The problem is multi > faceted and I do not pretend

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hoi, It is not that I am not with Brion. The problem is multi faceted and I do not pretend that I know personell and how Lila is appreciated. I am talking about community and about perceptions and maybe a bit of the sociology of all this. Being for or against is not the point, hearing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I'm with Vibber too. I work in Engineering. This summary does not represent my views, or the views of anyone I know. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > I'm with Vibber. He has seen things clearly. > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the > WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her > the chosen candidate. The fact that people object,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I'm with Vibber. He has seen things clearly. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the > WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hoi, Where have you been when the search was on for a new director for the WIkimedia Foundation? It was the vision that Lila refers to that made her the chosen candidate. The fact that people object, frustrate and sometimes sabotage is an unfortunate micro level consequence of what is happening.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Lila's statement of her vision for WMF is compelling and attractive. If properly and faithfully executed, it seems like it would make just the right adjustments to the culture of the WMF and its interaction with and support of the Wikimedia community. I have long been concerned that a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Lila, Congratulations for having such a clear and wise understanding of the present and future of Wikimedia. Your views collide with those of many who from positions of power both at the WMF and the communities have had a chance to impose them on everybody else, squashing, blocking and deleting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: > First, many staff members feel that the accomplishments you claim under > "we" are not attributable to you. > I assumed that's why she used the word "we". I took it that she was taking some credit for pushing some of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > When we started, the open knowledge on Wikipedia was a large piece of the > internet. Today, we have an opportunity to be the door into the whole > ecosystem of open knowledge by: > > >- scaling knowledge (by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Lila, a few notes. First, many staff members feel that the accomplishments you claim under "we" are not attributable to you. Complaints about lack of strategy and confusing management have come from all levels of the staff; the implication that people who failed to be promoted might be behind