Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Tito Dutta]

(I won't make this personal and this is *not* to *anyone* or about any past
incident in specific.)
But I second Legoktm on this. That was surprising to me as well.
We have pages and essays on Wikipedia such as
* IPs are human too (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too),
* Arbs are people too (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbs_are_people_too),
* Admins are people too (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admins_are_people_too)
We may need to have a similar essay/writing "WMF staff are people too" or
something similar (unless we have it already, a quick search on Wikipedia,
and Google showed nothing)

Thanks and regards
User:Titodutta


On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 04:39, Kunal Mehta  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> On 2020-06-05 00:29, Pine W wrote:
> > I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
> > wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
> > the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
> > sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
> > and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
> > perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
> > person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
> > than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
> > information to decide what accountability measures should have been
> > taken.
>
> So by your own account, you don't have enough information, yet you're
> still calling for people to be fired. We went over this in January -
> stop it.
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-January/094131.html
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-January/094130.html
>
> -- Legoktm
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Kunal Mehta]

Hi Pine,

On 2020-06-05 00:29, Pine W wrote:
> I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
> wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
> the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
> sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
> and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
> perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
> person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
> than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
> information to decide what accountability measures should have been
> taken.

So by your own account, you don't have enough information, yet you're
still calling for people to be fired. We went over this in January -
stop it.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-January/094131.html

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-January/094130.html

-- Legoktm

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[RhinosF1 -]

Thanks for offering to answer questions. I asked one but couldn't log onto
Zoom due to being busy.

Do we know when notes of the hour will be out?

Samuel/RhinosF1

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 08:30, Pine W  wrote:

> Agreed that office hours are a nice idea, although
>
> 1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
> Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
> only.
>
> 2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
> I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
> captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
> happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
> summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
> Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
> comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
> what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
> extensively into what happened while she was on leave.
>
> I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
> wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
> the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
> sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
> and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
> perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
> person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
> than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
> information to decide what accountability measures should have been
> taken. I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
> been an outside review as I describe here, including public
> accountability for the actions of individual staff, much as we do on
> English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:30 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yes thank you very much. I really liked the sincerity and the straight
> to the point amswers. It feels great to be listened at and given sincere
> answers.
> >
> > Make this call a best practice, it rocked.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Nattes à chat
> >
> > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >
> > > Le 4 juin 2020 à 22:16, Tito Dutta  a écrit :
> > >
> > > True, (because of connectivity issues I was disconnected for some
> time).
> > > Thanks Maggie for answering the questions and clarifying things. All
> the
> > > best and good wishes.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 01:17, Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!
> > >>
> > >> The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and
> > >> informative.
> > >> Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions
> and
> > >> giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.
> > >>
> > >> It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of
> the
> > >> processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
> > >> working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction
> to
> > >> establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
> > >> agreeable outcome.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings
> as
> > >> this project progresses!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Aron
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of
> question-askers
> > >>> anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1],
> on IRC
> > >>> [2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email in advance to
> > >> answ...@wikimedia.org
> > >>> (To make sure they are presented during this meeting, please use
> “Trust &
> > >>> Safety” as the subject line.)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> >
> > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee

[Aron Manning]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
> This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile.
>

Your proposal was thought-provoking. I was about to share my thoughts on it
for a long time:

First, I think there are 3 aspects to the discussion on the CoC:
1. The values and standards defined in the CoC: policy making.
2. Establishing those standards in the community: education.
3. Ensuring those standards are upheld: enforcement.

These have very different considerations and challenges, therefore it's
important to distinguish. I saw in the community feedback that 1. and 3.
(definition and enforcement) are discussed intermixed. Most notably I've
seen many reactions worried about how enforcement (3) will be done, finding
fault in the idea of having a CoC (1).

Furthermore, I haven't seen education (2) being discussed, although I
believe that part is necessary to prevent issues escalating to enforcement.
For ex. if we take a look at the first five points of the Contributor
Covenant 
:

   - Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
   - Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
   - Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
   - Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our
   mistakes, and learning from the experience
   - Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the
   overall community

These are values we strive for, therefore I would include in a CoC. These
are not to be enforced, it would be ridiculous to ban an editor for not
being empathetic, but it's an important declaration of values to aim for.
To make these values a reality I believe the key is education, showing an
example and rewarding such behavior.

I reckon your proposal discusses the 3rd aspect: enforcement. That comes
into effect when the opposite of the above values is experienced, such as
hostility. My thought on your points:

I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
> be good in some limited but important circumstances:
>

> (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct
> review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that
> removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other
> authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a
> relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's
> governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that
> peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
>

That would be a very beneficial application. The "clean start" requires
criterions or some form of an election for choosing new admins or
functionaries. That's worth a separate topic in itself.


> ... I think that local
> administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a
> project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to
> address these disputes.
>

In a scalable dispute resolution system with well-defined paths of
escalation local admins then functionaries would be part of that path.

(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
> people feel safe.


This is a valid concern, in my opinion observable in how the Technical Code
of Conduct committee interprets the CoC and deals with feedback about
development mistakes and decisions that startled the community.
There are a few editors, who weren't careful enough when expressing their
disappointment - mostly about Flow and VE - and received a temporary or
permanent ban in response.

I've also observed this very regularly in disputes on the big wikis (not
just enwiki). I think this is one of the major reasons for editors leaving
and it will be difficult to address this issue.
I believe the high stakes of blocking makes the threat of blocking (usually
implied, not explicit) a strong tool in silencing debates. As blocks are
very difficult to apply to editors, whose work is highly valued, that
threat usually affects one side in a dispute, thus becoming discouraging
from open debate. This shortcoming of the original blocking model
predetermines the outcome of many debates, when one side is practically
exempt from the conduct policies. These stakes were somewhat reduced by the
introduction of partial blocks, which reduces the severity of sanctions and
might even be applied to editors, who would have been considered
unblockables.

To avoid use of bans as a silencing tool, a similar refined approach needs
to be taken with CoC enforcement as well. The focus should be on resolving
disputes and - only if necessary - applying the minimal effective sanction.
Bans should be the very last resort, only after a number of smaller
sanctions failed. These escalation models can be well defined, detailing
the possible breadth and length of sanctions.

In comparison, the length and severity of blocks is now at the discretion
of administrators without limitations, allowing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Ad Huikeshoven]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:17 AM Aron Manning  wrote:

> It doesn't answer any of your questions, but I've just stumbled upon this
> and thought you might be interested: 2019 Governance Review
> <
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Board_Veritas_Governance_Recommendations_Final_Public_Copy.pdf
> >
>
> Thanks for the link. That is an interesting read. On page 11:
*"4. Commission a stakeholder analysis to expose and address instances
where goals and priorities of the community and the Foundation may be at
odds"*

I am interested to read a stakeholder analysis. So far, I haven't found one
in the Wikimedia Movement 2030 strategy process, but I might have
overlooked it. Who are our stakeholders? What are their needs? What needs
are unmet? How important are those stakeholders for the movement, how
important are we for those stakeholders? How powerful are those
stakeholders?

Veritas recommended; "The Foundation should commission a task force or
third party to conduct a thorough Stakeholder Analysis "
Has a task force of third been commissioned to conduct a thorough
stakeholder analysis?

Veritas recommended as the first priority next step on page 19:
Commission a stakeholder analysis and/or utilize a task force to gain a
full understanding of instances where goals and priorities of the
Movement/community and the Foundation may vary or be at odds, so that these
can be properly addressed by the board and CEO in partnership, utilizing
community input.

So please, I would like to know what step the board or CEO has taken
regarding stakeholder analysis.

Regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Aron Manning]

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 09:30, Pine W  wrote:

> 1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
> Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
> only.
>

It was great to have it in person. Conferencing is a great opportunity to
have a more humane experience in this binary environment.
Also there was an IRC channel. IRC however shares one's IP - unless a cloak
is set up, which is not trivial -, so how is that "privacy"?
I don't understand why some imaginary "privacy reasons" have to trump good
things, such as the openness of this meeting.
In any way, being on video was optional and questions on both IRC and
Youtube chats were answered. It was really well organized, professional, I
would say.

2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
> I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
> captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
> happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
> summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
> Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
> comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
> what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
> extensively into what happened while she was on leave.
>

I don't think we can expect the WMF to admit the SANFRANBAN was motivated
by staff members' needs, not by the intent to protect the community and
address hostility in the admin ranks. Nor do I care, that's in the past and
the focus now is to create in collaboration with the communities better,
transparent and accountable processes instead of the secretive office
actions.


> I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
> been an outside review as I describe here, including public
>

It doesn't answer any of your questions, but I've just stumbled upon this
and thought you might be interested: 2019 Governance Review



an outside review as I describe here, including public
>
accountability for the actions of individual staff,
> *much as we do on English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries*.
>

Emphasis mine. What kind of public review is there on enwiki? WP:DESYSOP2019

?
I recall a few admins alleged it would be "abused", so better not have it
(aka. no consensus).

In practice not even policy violations can be reported, unless you are a
well-known admin or established editor, or want to get banned.

Regarding functionaries: the Ombudsman Commission had *9 cases older than
one year *at the end of March (ref
)
and *24 unsolved cases* altogether.
This trend has been ongoing for years, in 2018 first half there were 2
cases closed (in 6 months!) and 12 open...
Besides, the OC only reports the number of cases, nothing else in public.
What kind of "public accountability" is there for functionaries?

As I see both sides need to improve accountability and the capability for
self-review. Holding people accountable does not mean, however, that heads
need to fall, admins be desysoped and employees fired. That approach
creates a battlefield environment: fight for yourself till the last
breath, then be gone. That's not healthy. Accountability means to recognize
that the results of our actions (not just mistakes) could be better and to
learn from it, improve and (on an advanced level) fix the mistakes. That
last part seldom happens, but the first step is to recognize the mistakes
and that's the step we are at now.

I appreciate that Maggie has shown a much more open and transparent
approach than we've experienced in the office actions consultation
.
This gives me more faith that the implementation of these recommendations
will be more for the benefit of the whole community than one small group.


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Anders Wennersten]

I agree. youtube  (+zoom) and chat worked very well. I still had problem 
follow all that being said, and would like the "black" notice to have 
been used more and show (just a few seconds) the question being 
discussed. And besides applauds for Maggie being straight forward, I 
also want to applaud (elene?) for coordinating the questions, and 
forwarding her own - how does it fell for you to be in such a hot spot 
as T has become .


I see this as best practice and hope it will be used for many more 
info/discussion meetups.


Anders

Den 2020-06-05 kl. 09:48, skrev Ciell Wikipedia:

Hi Pine,

1) For me, as non-native speaker, it really helps to see someone speak
while I am hearing them. I applaud Maggie for doing this on screen. There
is no need for recording, but the streaming really adds to my understanding
of what is being said.

2) Though I realise that it may be a case that is still really clear to
you, if she was not the person in charge at the time (Maggie was on leave
as she pointed out) and it's been 11 months, it is not strange that she
cannot recall all the details. I think her answer would have been more
specific when she would have had the time to research the question.
And with the new UCoC, an Ombudsman/audit would also be introduced for the
T cases.  Imho this would be a good way to learn and develop from. For
staff, and for all Wikimedia users involved.

I am really interested in the "outside review for English administrators
and functionaries". Could you please share with me (on or off list) a link
to how that is formed, implemented and carried out?

Ciell
(she/her)


Op vr 5 jun. 2020 09:30 schreef Pine W :


Agreed that office hours are a nice idea, although

1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
only.

2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
extensively into what happened while she was on leave.

I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
information to decide what accountability measures should have been
taken. I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
been an outside review as I describe here, including public
accountability for the actions of individual staff, much as we do on
English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:30 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
 wrote:

Yes thank you very much. I really liked the sincerity and the straight

to the point amswers. It feels great to be listened at and given sincere
answers.

Make this call a best practice, it rocked.

Warm regards,

Nattes à chat

Envoyé de mon iPhone


Le 4 juin 2020 à 22:16, Tito Dutta  a écrit :

True, (because of connectivity issues I was disconnected for some

time).

Thanks Maggie for answering the questions and clarifying things. All

the

best and good wishes.

Thanks
Tito Dutta
Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to

remind

me over email or phone call.



On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 01:17, Aron Manning 

wrote:

Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!

The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and
informative.
Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions

and

giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.

It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of

the

processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction

to

establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
agreeable outcome.

Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings

as

this project progresses!


Aron



On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis 

wrote:

We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of

question-askers

anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1],

on IRC

[2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Ciell Wikipedia]

Hi Pine,

1) For me, as non-native speaker, it really helps to see someone speak
while I am hearing them. I applaud Maggie for doing this on screen. There
is no need for recording, but the streaming really adds to my understanding
of what is being said.

2) Though I realise that it may be a case that is still really clear to
you, if she was not the person in charge at the time (Maggie was on leave
as she pointed out) and it's been 11 months, it is not strange that she
cannot recall all the details. I think her answer would have been more
specific when she would have had the time to research the question.
And with the new UCoC, an Ombudsman/audit would also be introduced for the
T cases.  Imho this would be a good way to learn and develop from. For
staff, and for all Wikimedia users involved.

I am really interested in the "outside review for English administrators
and functionaries". Could you please share with me (on or off list) a link
to how that is formed, implemented and carried out?

Ciell
(she/her)


Op vr 5 jun. 2020 09:30 schreef Pine W :

> Agreed that office hours are a nice idea, although
>
> 1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
> Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
> only.
>
> 2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
> I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
> captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
> happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
> summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
> Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
> comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
> what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
> extensively into what happened while she was on leave.
>
> I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
> wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
> the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
> sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
> and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
> perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
> person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
> than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
> information to decide what accountability measures should have been
> taken. I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
> been an outside review as I describe here, including public
> accountability for the actions of individual staff, much as we do on
> English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:30 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
>  wrote:
> >
> > Yes thank you very much. I really liked the sincerity and the straight
> to the point amswers. It feels great to be listened at and given sincere
> answers.
> >
> > Make this call a best practice, it rocked.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Nattes à chat
> >
> > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> >
> > > Le 4 juin 2020 à 22:16, Tito Dutta  a écrit :
> > >
> > > True, (because of connectivity issues I was disconnected for some
> time).
> > > Thanks Maggie for answering the questions and clarifying things. All
> the
> > > best and good wishes.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 01:17, Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!
> > >>
> > >> The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and
> > >> informative.
> > >> Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions
> and
> > >> giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.
> > >>
> > >> It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of
> the
> > >> processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
> > >> working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction
> to
> > >> establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
> > >> agreeable outcome.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings
> as
> > >> this project progresses!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Aron
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of
> question-askers
> > >>> anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1],
> on IRC
> > >>> [2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email in advance to
> > >> answ...@wikimedia.org
> > >>> (To make sure they are presented during this meeting, please use
> “Trust &
> > >>> Safety” as the subject line.)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Pine W]

Agreed that office hours are a nice idea, although

1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
only.

2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
extensively into what happened while she was on leave.

I don't know what all was going on inside of WMF, but I would have
wanted an outsider -- that is, not someone inside of WMF -- to review
the actions of the staff, similar to how police departments are
sometimes reviewed by outside agencies after high profile incidents,
and I would want the report from that review to be public. Given my
perspective on what happened, I think that at least one WMF staff
person probably should have been demoted or fired, and perhaps more
than one, up to and including Katherine. However, I don't have enough
information to decide what accountability measures should have been
taken. I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
been an outside review as I describe here, including public
accountability for the actions of individual staff, much as we do on
English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:30 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
 wrote:
>
> Yes thank you very much. I really liked the sincerity and the straight to the 
> point amswers. It feels great to be listened at and given sincere answers.
>
> Make this call a best practice, it rocked.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 4 juin 2020 à 22:16, Tito Dutta  a écrit :
> >
> > True, (because of connectivity issues I was disconnected for some time).
> > Thanks Maggie for answering the questions and clarifying things. All the
> > best and good wishes.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tito Dutta
> > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> > me over email or phone call.
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 01:17, Aron Manning  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!
> >>
> >> The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and
> >> informative.
> >> Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions and
> >> giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.
> >>
> >> It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of the
> >> processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
> >> working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction to
> >> establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
> >> agreeable outcome.
> >>
> >> Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings as
> >> this project progresses!
> >>
> >>
> >> Aron
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of question-askers
> >>> anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1], on IRC
> >>> [2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email in advance to
> >> answ...@wikimedia.org
> >>> (To make sure they are presented during this meeting, please use “Trust &
> >>> Safety” as the subject line.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Yes thank you very much. I really liked the sincerity and the straight to the 
point amswers. It feels great to be listened at and given sincere answers. 

Make this call a best practice, it rocked. 

Warm regards, 

Nattes à chat 

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 4 juin 2020 à 22:16, Tito Dutta  a écrit :
> 
> True, (because of connectivity issues I was disconnected for some time).
> Thanks Maggie for answering the questions and clarifying things. All the
> best and good wishes.
> 
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 01:17, Aron Manning  wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!
>> 
>> The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and
>> informative.
>> Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions and
>> giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.
>> 
>> It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of the
>> processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
>> working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction to
>> establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
>> agreeable outcome.
>> 
>> Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings as
>> this project progresses!
>> 
>> 
>> Aron
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis  wrote:
>>> 
>>> We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of question-askers
>>> anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1], on IRC
>>> [2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email in advance to
>> answ...@wikimedia.org
>>> (To make sure they are presented during this meeting, please use “Trust &
>>> Safety” as the subject line.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,