Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

 Hello Rogol,

I said I would get back to you on three questions (below). Plus, I’d like
to return to a point you made about "upstream" collaboration and add an
update on Maps and Interactive.

   - What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
   - What do we currently have in terms of planning?
   - Will that change?
   - Maps and Interactive

Yes, to tech roadmaps. Generally, 12 - 18 months seems like the upper-bound
for a technical roadmap with any granularity.

Currently we have published roadmaps for individual products. They can be
found at their respective media wiki pages. We do not have a roadmap for
tech overall. We have our annual plan.  We also publish quarterly goals
that roll up to our annual plan.

We see the next step as gaining greater clarity on a movement-wide
direction and then for us all to discuss roles and responsibilities.
After, members of the Foundation will clarify a strategy.

In one of your earlier posts on this thread you said, "It so happens that I
have advocated for involving the Community in the planning more, earlier
and at a higher level.” Technologically speaking, we’d agree. The Dev
Summit this coming year will be a smaller, more focused event to engage the
technical community—both inside and outside of the foundation—"earlier and
at a higher level” collaboration.

We’ll then have a technology roadmap, on about a one-year timeline, as
anything beyond 18 months most consider fantasy.

Maps and Interactive will live on. We’ve committed to supporting maps in
the annual plan. We are putting together a team.

Thank you,
/a



On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
> We celebrate Easter here too.  Take as long as you like.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
>> It's a three day weekend here. I don't want to do call and response all
>> weekend if that's cool. I'll post at the beginning of next week.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Rogol Domedonfors > > wrote:
>>
>>> Anna
>>>
>>> By all means
>>>
>>> "Rogol"
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Anna Stillwell <
>>> astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Rogol,

 Hello. I am close to having some clarity to share. Might I extend to mid
 April?

 /a

>>>
>>
>
___
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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

Rogol,

Hello. I am close to having some clarity to share. Might I extend to mid
April?

/a

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  > wrote:
>
>> Anna,
>>
>>
>> > > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
>> >
>> > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
>> > the
>> > > > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
>> hoc
>> > > and
>> > > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
>> general
>> > > > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
>> honest.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK,
>> it
>> > is
>> > > a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
>> > behaviour.  I
>> > > assume you mean something different?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to
>> > clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our
>> > communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best
>> > places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable,
>> > potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
>> >
>>
>> I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015
>> which may provide you with some background.  I suggested some ideas about
>> centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other
>> process-oriented points.
>
>
> I will do a broad lit review when and if the time comes (on and off wiki).
> If I do so, I will follow these links and read about this as part of that
> broader lit review.
>
>
>> Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud
>> identify three aspects that you might address.
>>
>> Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that
>> the community is a partner in the entire enterprise.
>
>
> Agreed. No argument.
>
> But I'd like to expand your argument. I would like to add a perspective,
> not subtract from yours. Our current communities are very seriously
> important partners in the entire enterprise, as we are theirs. These days,
> I am also thinking about future communities... new readers and new editors
> in new geographies on new devices, and reading the thoughts of experts on
> the evolution of platforms within the context of the evolving web.
>
> I am also curious about the role of machines. Will they become an
> important partner? I know that they say we will welcome our robot
> overlords. But I am more interested in collaborating with them. Why can't
> humans and machines collaborate toward social/educational goods?
>
> Machine learning is all the rage these days. But to what end? The
> standard, for-profit, big data play is to harvest and bottom feed a ton of
> data, run it through a layered algorithm, and spit out "something
> something" to a customer for a fee. I think they call it insight. I have a
> different definition of insight. But hey, to each their own.
>
> We don't have customers and we don't bottom feed. Two things I am proud
> of. That is why I was so excited about ORES. An open, ethical, effective
> AI for social impact that currently helps vandal fighters
> .
> More importantly, it may help with the 
> "revert-new-editors’-first-few-edits-and-alienate-them
> problem". That's just the current capabilities of this platform.
>
> My broader point being that I also want to think of the new stakeholders
> that will join us all and how we can prepare for and welcome them into the
> knowledge creating endeavor.
>
>
>> Of course the
>> community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is
>> not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise.
>> Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a
>> passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to
>> disaster.
>>
>
> I understand your point.
>
>>
>> One misundertood word is representation.  I believe that some staff
>> members
>> believe that they can represent the community simply by having been
>> volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their
>> staff and volunteer identities.  This is so far from true that it only
>> needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to
>> split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological
>> well-being.  The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience
>> should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further
>> contact with the community is utterly disastrous.  Those with community
>> engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit
>> of enquiry.  It 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
>
> > > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> >
> > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
> > the
> > > > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
> hoc
> > > and
> > > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
> general
> > > > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
> honest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, it
> > is
> > > a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
> > behaviour.  I
> > > assume you mean something different?
> > >
> >
> > I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to
> > clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our
> > communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best
> > places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable,
> > potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
> >
>
> I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015
> which may provide you with some background.  I suggested some ideas about
> centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other
> process-oriented points.


I will do a broad lit review when and if the time comes (on and off wiki).
If I do so, I will follow these links and read about this as part of that
broader lit review.


> Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud
> identify three aspects that you might address.
>
> Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that
> the community is a partner in the entire enterprise.


Agreed. No argument.

But I'd like to expand your argument. I would like to add a perspective,
not subtract from yours. Our current communities are very seriously
important partners in the entire enterprise, as we are theirs. These days,
I am also thinking about future communities... new readers and new editors
in new geographies on new devices, and reading the thoughts of experts on
the evolution of platforms within the context of the evolving web.

I am also curious about the role of machines. Will they become an important
partner? I know that they say we will welcome our robot overlords. But I am
more interested in collaborating with them. Why can't humans and machines
collaborate toward social/educational goods?

Machine learning is all the rage these days. But to what end? The standard,
for-profit, big data play is to harvest and bottom feed a ton of data, run
it through a layered algorithm, and spit out "something something" to a
customer for a fee. I think they call it insight. I have a different
definition of insight. But hey, to each their own.

We don't have customers and we don't bottom feed. Two things I am proud of.
That is why I was so excited about ORES. An open, ethical, effective AI for
social impact that currently helps vandal fighters
.
More importantly, it may help with the
"revert-new-editors’-first-few-edits-and-alienate-them
problem". That's just the current capabilities of this platform.

My broader point being that I also want to think of the new stakeholders
that will join us all and how we can prepare for and welcome them into the
knowledge creating endeavor.


> Of course the
> community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is
> not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise.
> Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a
> passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to
> disaster.
>

I understand your point.

>
> One misundertood word is representation.  I believe that some staff members
> believe that they can represent the community simply by having been
> volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their
> staff and volunteer identities.  This is so far from true that it only
> needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to
> split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological
> well-being.  The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience
> should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further
> contact with the community is utterly disastrous.  Those with community
> engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit
> of enquiry.  It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done,
> it is their work.
>

I don't know what staff members believe. I will investigate this when and
if I arrive at that stage of problem solving.  I understand your point.

>
> Genuine interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed
> questions of a few 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna,


> > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
>
> > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
> the
> > > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
> > and
> > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general
> > > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, it
> is
> > a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
> behaviour.  I
> > assume you mean something different?
> >
>
> I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to
> clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our
> communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best
> places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable,
> potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
>

I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015
which may provide you with some background.  I suggested some ideas about
centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other
process-oriented points.  Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud
identify three aspects that you might address.

Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that
the community is a partner in the entire enterprise.  Of course the
community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is
not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise.
Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a
passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to
disaster.

One misundertood word is representation.  I believe that some staff members
believe that they can represent the community simply by having been
volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their
staff and volunteer identities.  This is so far from true that it only
needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to
split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological
well-being.  The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience
should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further
contact with the community is utterly disastrous.  Those with community
engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit
of enquiry.  It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done,
it is their work.

The WMF is distinctly less planful than I would expect.  Genuine
interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed questions of a
few community members about which of a few predetermined options they
prefer.  It means doing a lot of work and being genuinely transparent. It
also requires internal coordination of a kind which I do not always detect
within the WMF.

Finally, the culture of complacency needs to be addressed.  Being involved
in a meritorious project does not automatically make the work done
meritorious.  Too many technical and community projects are initiated and
then allowed to drift, or fade away, after having wasted staff time (which
is donor money) and community time effort and goodwill.  The WMF cannot
afford to be as slack as this any longer.


I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three
> questions:
>
>- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
>- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
>- Will that change?
>
> I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may
> be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
>

Thank you.

I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that
> it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If it
> came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I
> was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a
> series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure
> that they were correct.
>

I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> >
> > > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> > > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
> > not
> > > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> > >
> >
> > Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> > experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
> less
> > interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
> future.  I
> > merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
> >
>
> I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

Hello Rogol,

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
>
> > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
> not
> > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> >
>
> Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less
> interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future.  I
> merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
>

I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps I
solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation from a
slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build an
org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see what I
hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining many
ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I
focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on.

Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that I
would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me,
just not at this stage.

What I said was,
> "I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly
address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice.
We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to
keep the solution set honest."

>
>
> > [stuff]]
> > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
> together
> > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
> any
> > way on this particular instance.
> >
>
> That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
>

You have such a gentle touch. :)

>
>
> > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the
> > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
> and
> > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general
> > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
> >
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, it is
> a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour.  I
> assume you mean something different?
>

I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to
clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our
communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best
places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable,
potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.

>
>
> The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do
> you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical
> roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please
> will the WMF publish it."  Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you
> were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly
> less useful version.  My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
>
> *Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF
> publish it.*
>
>
> > If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks
> > even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible
> > interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
> >
>
> I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue
> over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
>
>
> > But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I
> > hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
> us
> > at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your
> > distrust. I hear you.
> >
> > But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
> >
>
> Do you propose to take any steps to find out?  If you do, please will you
> let the community know?
>

I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three
questions:

   - What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
   - What do we currently have in terms of planning?
   - Will that change?

I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write to
you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer another,
more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the
movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week. That’s
at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a coherent
answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is
doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult to
get time with.

I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may
be sooner, but 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James and others,

The question of whether the WMF ought or ought not to have a roadmap is an
interesting one, which I enourage you to debate not with me but with Wes
Moran and the other members of the WMF leadership, for whom it is an
actionable point.

My question is addressed to that leadership, and remains: Does the WMF have
such a roadmap, and if so will they publish it?

Gerard and others,

The question of whether or not to learn from the past is also an
interesting one.  My answer to Gerard's plain questions, which were "Are
you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you
willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English?"
are respectively, "Yes, and I have done so frequently" and "Yes of course".

"Rogol"

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Foundation doesn't have a product roadmap because new product goals are
> updated at least once a year; more often internally. A roadmap as described
> in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap is appropriate when
> long
> term plans are under centralized control and not subject to change. The WMF
> uses a variety of means to update goals frequently from all its
> stakeholders, so how would a roadmap even help?
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:03 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is
> a
> > map of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to
> > navigate to unfamiliar places when travelling by car.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work
> > on pause
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn
> from
> > the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an
> argument
> > but such an argument has to convince us all.
> >
> > I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external
> to
> > me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am
> > not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your
> arguments
> > for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
> >
> > When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a
> > collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural
> > heritage).
> >
> > My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am
> > willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than
> > only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your
> arguments?
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> > > Anna,
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope
> > > > is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire.
> > > > Hope is
> > > not
> > > > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> > > experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
> > > less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
> > > future.  I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
> > >
> > >
> > > > [stuff]]
> > > > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
> > > together
> > > > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment
> > > > in
> > > any
> > > > way on this particular instance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from
> it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> > > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little
> > > > about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the
> > > > future, ad hoc
> > > and
> > > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
> > > > general solution sets, with enou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[James Salsman]

The Foundation doesn't have a product roadmap because new product goals are
updated at least once a year; more often internally. A roadmap as described
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap is appropriate when long
term plans are under centralized control and not subject to change. The WMF
uses a variety of means to update goals frequently from all its
stakeholders, so how would a roadmap even help?


On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:03 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is a
> map of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to
> navigate to unfamiliar places when travelling by car.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work
> on pause
>
> Hoi,
> Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from
> the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument
> but such an argument has to convince us all.
>
> I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to
> me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am
> not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments
> for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
>
> When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a
> collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural
> heritage).
>
> My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am
> willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than
> only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments?
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> >
>
> > Anna,
> >
> >
> > > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope
> > > is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire.
> > > Hope is
> > not
> > > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> > >
> >
> > Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> > experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
> > less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
> > future.  I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
> >
> >
> > > [stuff]]
> > > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
> > together
> > > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment
> > > in
> > any
> > > way on this particular instance.
> > >
> >
> > That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
> >
> >
> > > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> > > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little
> > > about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the
> > > future, ad hoc
> > and
> > > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
> > > general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution
> set honest.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK,
> > it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
> > behaviour.  I assume you mean something different?
> >
> >
> > >  I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not
> know.
> > >
> > >
> > > > and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the
> > > > organisation should not know of its existence and be able to
> > > > confirm at least whether or not it exists.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me
> > > to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
> > challenges
> > > as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep
> > > me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are
> > > solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee
> > > benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle,
> > > I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Peter Southwood]

While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is a map 
of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to navigate to 
unfamiliar places when travelling by car.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on 
pause

Hoi,
Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from the 
past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument but 
such an argument has to convince us all.

I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to me 
should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am not 
convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments for our 
mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.

When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a 
collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural 
heritage).

My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing 
to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia 
and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments?
Thanks,
   GerardM

Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com
>

> Anna,
>
>
> > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope 
> > is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. 
> > Hope is
> not
> > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> >
>
> Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over 
> experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are 
> less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the 
> future.  I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
>
>
> > [stuff]]
> > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
> together
> > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment 
> > in
> any
> > way on this particular instance.
> >
>
> That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
>
>
> > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the 
> > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little 
> > about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the 
> > future, ad hoc
> and
> > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and 
> > general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set 
> > honest.
> >
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, 
> it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social 
> behaviour.  I assume you mean something different?
>
>
> >  I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
> >
> >
> > > and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the 
> > > organisation should not know of its existence and be able to 
> > > confirm at least whether or not it exists.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me 
> > to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
> challenges
> > as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep 
> > me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are 
> > solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee 
> > benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, 
> > I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could 
> > make sense that a Director in T might not be up to date on what is 
> > going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
> >
> > However, I am here now.
> >
> >
> > > You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the 
> > > possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
> question.
> > >
> >
> > That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the 
> > question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most 
> > exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a 
> > public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin!  I think that 
> > is in the Wharton-Business-School 
> > <http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals
> > ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g=NAM_BRAND_id=WFbx
> > 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s>-what-not-to-do
> > manual... admi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Peter Southwood]

Good answer.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anna Stillwell
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 3:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on 
pause

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Anna,
>
>
> > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for 
> > me to visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
> >
>
> Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
>

Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules.
After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on a 
number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch of 
gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like an 
entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would show up 
with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.

>
>
> > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement 
> > strategy 
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017>. 
> > I
> know
> > that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state 
> > that
> you
> > speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start 
> > in
> my
> > mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite 
> > for
> the
> > kind of collaboration you speak of.
> >
>
>
> Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
>

Yes.

Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is 
necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not a 
strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.

Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there.
It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks like 
most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and 
white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and 
food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a 
Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way.  There is so much work to do on so many fronts.

I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.


> > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> guidelines
> > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its 
> > > ideas through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the 
> > reference and I should.
> >
>
> They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_
> Guidance
> which is currently under discussion.  This appears to be a successor 
> project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_
> process/Communities which is described as stalled.
>

Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week 
clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity on which 
problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at the end of the 
email if you would like that clarity as well.

>
>

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around 
> > > > transparency,
> I
> > > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people 
> > > > know
> > > that
> > > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we 
> > > > all
> > > fought
> > > > for it.
> > > >
> > > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around 
> > > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been 
> > > patchy
> > at
> > > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
> >
> >
> > That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to 
> > hear your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that 
> > I
> recently
> > heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're 
> > in
> the
> > final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values 
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing>. We 
> > invited some current and former community-selected board members as 
> > well
> as
> > volunteers beyond the board to these conversations.  I enjoyed them 
> > very much.
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from
the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument
but such an argument has to convince us all.

I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to
me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am
not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments
for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.

When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a
collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural
heritage).

My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am
willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than
only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments?
Thanks,
   GerardM

Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors 

> Anna,
>
>
> > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
> not
> > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> >
>
> Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less
> interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future.  I
> merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
>
>
> > [stuff]]
> > I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
> together
> > what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
> any
> > way on this particular instance.
> >
>
> That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
>
>
> > Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> > organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the
> > past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
> and
> > particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general
> > solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
> >
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, it is
> a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour.  I
> assume you mean something different?
>
>
> >  I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
> >
> >
> > > and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the
> > > organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at
> > > least whether or not it exists.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to
> > explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
> challenges
> > as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me
> > (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely
> > dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits),
> > relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking
> > you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a
> > Director in T might not be up to date on what is going on relative to
> > Product Roadmaps.
> >
> > However, I am here now.
> >
> >
> > > You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the
> > > possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
> question.
> > >
> >
> > That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the
> > question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing
> > and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing
> > list. Talk about a total lack of spin!  I think that is in the
> > Wharton-Business-School
> >  > ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g=NAM_BRAND_id=WFbx
> > 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s>-what-not-to-do
> > manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
> >
>
> The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do
> you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical
> roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please
> will the WMF publish it."  Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you
> were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly
> less useful version.  My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
>
> *Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF
> publish it.*
>
>
> > If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks
> > even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible
> > interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
> >
>
> I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue
> over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
>
>
> > But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Jane Darnell]

To understand Hoi you first need to get yourself some stroopwafels to go
with your coffee

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Anna I absolutely loved what you write.
>
>
> Gerard, I'm feeling the love, dude.
> (A fellow co-worker and I were talking the other day and she said that she
> even calls inanimate objects dude. I deeply resonated. So "dude" for us is
> not a gendered pronoun.)
>
>
> > It is very much uplifting to see
> > that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on
> > the ground
>
>
> Yes. Keep in mind that *we will make mistakes*. A lot of them. I promise
> you. I'm probably making one right now.
>
>
> > and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much that
> > even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has given
> > up on yesterdays arguments.
> >
>
> I agree with this statement. We need to build relationships for the future.
>
> And, "Rogol" wasn't talking about the past. He was inquiring about a
> product roadmap, which is all about the future. And his questions were
> fair.
>
> >
> > Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right.
> They
> > forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even
> > more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English
> > Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less
> > than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second
> > language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less
> > important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.
> >
>
> Yes. Think of all of the places we could go and things we could do.
> Remember to offer your important ideas in the movement strategy
> conversation. It's about a strategic direction, a theme for the next 15
> years. A general layer of meaning that sits right below the vision and
> describes the theme of the next 15 years. Might that not help coalesce our
> efforts?
>
> >
> > When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments
> > still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high
> > quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their
> > legacy.
> >
>
> I often forget to reality check if an argument still fits. Good reminder
> for me. It would be so much easier if reality would just let us make up our
> minds once and for all. lol.
>
>
> Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
>
> p.s. I know this may sound really ignorant, but what does "Hoi" mean?
> That's how you've started every email that I can ever remember.
>
>
> > On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anna,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for
> me
> > > to
> > > > > visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules.
> > > After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping
> me
> > on
> > > a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A
> > bunch
> > > of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt
> like
> > > an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits
> > would
> > > show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement
> > strategy
> > > > >  >.
> > I
> > > > know
> > > > > that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good
> start
> > in
> > > > my
> > > > > mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > kind of collaboration you speak of.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> > > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
> > not
> > > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> > >
> > > Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there.
> > > It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it
> > looks
> > > like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and
> > > censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as
> > > needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna,


> Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not
> a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
>

Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
experience".  The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less
interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future.  I
merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.


> [stuff]]
> I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece together
> what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in any
> way on this particular instance.
>

That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.


> Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
> organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the
> past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc and
> particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general
> solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
>

I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here.  In the UK, it is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour.  I
assume you mean something different?


>  I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
>
>
> > and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the
> > organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at
> > least whether or not it exists.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to
> explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture challenges
> as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me
> (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely
> dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits),
> relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking
> you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a
> Director in T might not be up to date on what is going on relative to
> Product Roadmaps.
>
> However, I am here now.
>
>
> > You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the
> > possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
> >
>
> That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the
> question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing
> and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing
> list. Talk about a total lack of spin!  I think that is in the
> Wharton-Business-School
>  ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g=NAM_BRAND_id=WFbx
> 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s>-what-not-to-do
> manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
>

The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do
you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical
roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please
will the WMF publish it."  Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you
were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly
less useful version.  My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:

*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF
publish it.*


> If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks
> even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible
> interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
>

I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue
over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.


> But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I
> hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take us
> at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your
> distrust. I hear you.
>
> But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
>

Do you propose to take any steps to find out?  If you do, please will you
let the community know?


> Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how do
> you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it differently.
> Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first
> syllable. Some on the second.
>
> I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you
> be *so sure*?”
>

Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics
Meeting, see, or rather listen to,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU=youtu.be

"Rogol"
___
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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Anna I absolutely loved what you write.


Gerard, I'm feeling the love, dude.
(A fellow co-worker and I were talking the other day and she said that she
even calls inanimate objects dude. I deeply resonated. So "dude" for us is
not a gendered pronoun.)


> It is very much uplifting to see
> that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on
> the ground


Yes. Keep in mind that *we will make mistakes*. A lot of them. I promise
you. I'm probably making one right now.


> and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much that
> even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has given
> up on yesterdays arguments.
>

I agree with this statement. We need to build relationships for the future.

And, "Rogol" wasn't talking about the past. He was inquiring about a
product roadmap, which is all about the future. And his questions were
fair.

>
> Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right. They
> forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even
> more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English
> Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less
> than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second
> language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less
> important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.
>

Yes. Think of all of the places we could go and things we could do.
Remember to offer your important ideas in the movement strategy
conversation. It's about a strategic direction, a theme for the next 15
years. A general layer of meaning that sits right below the vision and
describes the theme of the next 15 years. Might that not help coalesce our
efforts?

>
> When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments
> still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high
> quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their
> legacy.
>

I often forget to reality check if an argument still fits. Good reminder
for me. It would be so much easier if reality would just let us make up our
minds once and for all. lol.


Thanks,
>GerardM
>

p.s. I know this may sound really ignorant, but what does "Hoi" mean?
That's how you've started every email that I can ever remember.


> On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna,
> > >
> > >
> > > > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me
> > to
> > > > visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules.
> > After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me
> on
> > a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A
> bunch
> > of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like
> > an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits
> would
> > show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement
> strategy
> > > > .
> I
> > > know
> > > > that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state
> that
> > > you
> > > > speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start
> in
> > > my
> > > > mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite
> for
> > > the
> > > > kind of collaboration you speak of.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> > necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
> not
> > a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
> >
> > Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there.
> > It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it
> looks
> > like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and
> > censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as
> > needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having
> > access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way.  There is so
> > much work to do on so many fronts.
> >
> > I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
> >
> >
> > > > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> > > guidelines
> > > > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its
> > ideas
> > > > > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Anna I absolutely loved what you write. It is very much uplifting to see
that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on the
ground and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much
that even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has
given up on yesterdays arguments.

Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right. They
forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even
more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English
Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less
than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second
language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less
important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.

When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments
still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high
quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their
legacy.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> >
> > > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me
> to
> > > visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
> >
>
> Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules.
> After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on
> a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch
> of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like
> an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would
> show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
>
> >
> >
> > > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
> > > . I
> > know
> > > that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that
> > you
> > > speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in
> > my
> > > mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for
> > the
> > > kind of collaboration you speak of.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not
> a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
>
> Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there.
> It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks
> like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and
> censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as
> needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having
> access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way.  There is so
> much work to do on so many fronts.
>
> I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
>
>
> > > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> > guidelines
> > > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its
> ideas
> > > > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
> > > reference and I should.
> > >
> >
> > They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_
> > Guidance
> > which is currently under discussion.  This appears to be a successor
> > project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_
> > process/Communities which is described as stalled.
> >
>
> Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this
> week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity
> on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at
> the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
>
> >
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around
> transparency,
> > I
> > > > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people
> know
> > > > that
> > > > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we
> all
> > > > fought
> > > > > for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been
> patchy
> > > at
> > > > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
> > >
> > >
> > > That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to
> hear
> > > your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna,
>
>
> > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
> > visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
> >
>
> Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
>

Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules.
After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on
a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch
of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like
an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would
show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.

>
>
> > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
> > . I
> know
> > that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that
> you
> > speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in
> my
> > mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for
> the
> > kind of collaboration you speak of.
> >
>
>
> Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
>

Yes.

Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.

Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there.
It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks
like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and
censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as
needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having
access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way.  There is so
much work to do on so many fronts.

I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.


> > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> guidelines
> > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
> > reference and I should.
> >
>
> They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_
> Guidance
> which is currently under discussion.  This appears to be a successor
> project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_
> process/Communities which is described as stalled.
>

Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this
week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity
on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at
the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.

>
>

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
> I
> > > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > > that
> > > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > > fought
> > > > for it.
> > > >
> > > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> > at
> > > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
> >
> >
> > That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
> > your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
> recently
> > heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in
> the
> > final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values
> > . We
> > invited some current and former community-selected board members as well
> as
> > volunteers beyond the board to these conversations.  I enjoyed them very
> > much.
> >
> > Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were
> > anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source.
> They
> > talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they
> > really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where
> they
> > could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that
> > resonates with you?
> >
> > That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around
> > collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What
> they
> > would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it
> > seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
> >
>
> The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have
> been concerned about.  But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis
> of asymmetric access to information.  So transparency seems to be the
> prerequisite
>
> Cool. I think we’re 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna,


> As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
> visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
>

Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.


> Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
> . I know
> that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you
> speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my
> mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the
> kind of collaboration you speak of.
>


Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.

> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> >
>
> Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
> reference and I should.
>

They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance
which is currently under discussion.  This appears to be a successor
project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_
process/Communities which is described as stalled.



> >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > that
> > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > fought
> > > for it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > >
> >
> > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> at
> > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
>
>
> That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
> your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently
> heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the
> final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values
> . We
> invited some current and former community-selected board members as well as
> volunteers beyond the board to these conversations.  I enjoyed them very
> much.
>
> Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were
> anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source. They
> talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they
> really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where they
> could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that
> resonates with you?
>
> That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around
> collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What they
> would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it
> seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
>

The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have
been concerned about.  But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis
of asymmetric access to information.  So transparency seems to be the
prerequisite



>
>
> > What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be
> > different this year?
> >
>
> Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career, it’s
> all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s all I
> have to offer: what not to do.
>
> I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be happy
> to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as you
> know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately
> answering your question from my partial point of view.
>
> Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve
> relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind).
> I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a good
> faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future in
> open, inclusive, documented discourse
> .
>
> I see progress, not perfection.
>

I see confusion.  In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's public
pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people
like me directly on her Meta talk page.  Her predecessor had not thought
that.

> > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
> > plan
> > > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
> > hanging
> > > > by these events.
>  [...]
>

> I don’t have enough information.
>
> [...]
> >
> > Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
> >
>
> I do not know.
>

I want to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

"Rogol",

As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Anna
>
>
> > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> >
>
> Got it, thanks for asking.
>
> >
> > > So for example, in the
> > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> the
> > > software roadmap would be effective.
> >
> >
> > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> > upon
> > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> >
>
> I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
> ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> strategic level.


I now understand your perspective.

Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
. I know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my
mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the
kind of collaboration you speak of.


> To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
> of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
> would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
>

Very useful context. I see your point.


> Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
> by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
> .This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
> require a Roadmap, see below.
>

Thank you. You’ve clearly answered my question about how it is different.
Very useful.
>
>
> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
>

Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
reference and I should.

>
>
> > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > some time.
> >
> >
> > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> not
> > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> achieved
> > *the
> > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> >
>
> Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
> transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
>

Useful, clear summary. Appreciated.

>
> >
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> that
> > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> fought
> > for it.
> >
> > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> >
>
> My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
> lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.


That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard,


> What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
> the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
> wrong with the notions pandered.


I agree, and the more readily since I do not think, and have not said, that
the English-language Wikipedia constitutes the whole of the Community:
there are many languages, many projects, and in addition to the many who
contribute the content to the projects, there are those community members
who contribute through technical work or strategic advice.

The Foundation needs to be able to enagage with all these people.  That is
not easy, and will require work, technical tools and genuine willingness,
but it can be done – more, it must be done.

"Rogol"
___
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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
wrong with the notions pandered.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 28 January 2017 at 18:54, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
> the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
> plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
> who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
> particularly good?
>
> Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
> who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
> contribute to the WMF strategic planning process?  If so, by all means say
> so explicitly.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en
> wp,
> > I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
> >
> > It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
> > What community?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> > > Anna
> > >
> > >
> > > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > > > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
> > understanding
> > > > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones
> in
> > > > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Got it, thanks for asking.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > So for example, in the
> > > > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
> > between
> > > > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of
> > software
> > > > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management
> developing
> > > the
> > > > > software roadmap would be effective.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
> > do.
> > > > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > > > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what
> to
> > > > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
> > decided
> > > > upon
> > > > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing
> bright
> > > ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
> > some
> > > ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at
> the
> > > strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
> > lot
> > > of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early
> > consultation
> > > would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> > > English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> > > social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> > > work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> > > implementation made it all but impossible to do that work
> satisfactorily
> > > even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> > > Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the
> projects
> > > really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
> > representable
> > > by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> > > genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics,
> ...
> > .
> > > This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> > > collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would
> > also
> > > require a Roadmap, see below.
> > >
> > > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> > guidelines
> > > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > > > some time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
> > not a
> > > > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing
> is
> > > not
> > > > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> > > achieved
> > > > *the
> > > > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > > > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll
> wait
> > to
> > > > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
> > and
> > > transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard,

If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
particularly good?

Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
contribute to the WMF strategic planning process?  If so, by all means say
so explicitly.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
> I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
>
> It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
> What community?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> >
>
> > Anna
> >
> >
> > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
> understanding
> > > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> > >
> >
> > Got it, thanks for asking.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > So for example, in the
> > > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
> between
> > > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of
> software
> > > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> > the
> > > > software roadmap would be effective.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
> do.
> > > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
> decided
> > > upon
> > > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> > >
> >
> > I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> > ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
> some
> > ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> > strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
> lot
> > of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early
> consultation
> > would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> > English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> > social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> > work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> > implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> > even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> > Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> > really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
> representable
> > by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> > genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
> .
> > This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> > collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would
> also
> > require a Roadmap, see below.
> >
> > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> guidelines
> > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> >
> >
> > > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > > some time.
> > >
> > >
> > > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
> not a
> > > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> > not
> > > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> > achieved
> > > *the
> > > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait
> to
> > > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> > >
> >
> > Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
> and
> > transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > that
> > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > fought
> > > for it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > >
> >
> > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> at
> > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
> > changed in the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.

It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
What community?
Thanks,
GerardM

Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors 

> Anna
>
>
> > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> >
>
> Got it, thanks for asking.
>
>
> >
> > > So for example, in the
> > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> the
> > > software roadmap would be effective.
> >
> >
> > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> > upon
> > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> >
>
> I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
> ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
> of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
> would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
> by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .
> This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
> require a Roadmap, see below.
>
> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
>
>
> > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > some time.
> >
> >
> > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> not
> > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> achieved
> > *the
> > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> >
>
> Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
> transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
>
> >
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> that
> > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> fought
> > for it.
> >
> > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> >
>
> My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
> lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
> changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
> this year?
>
> >
> >
> > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
> plan
> > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
> hanging
> > > by these events.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> > mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so
> > far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
> times.
> >
>
> Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and
> it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused to
> even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
> can think of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna


> To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding
> problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
>

Got it, thanks for asking.


>
> > So for example, in the
> > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
> > members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
> > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the
> > software roadmap would be effective.
>
>
> I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do.
> Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided
> upon
> they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
>

I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some
ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would also
require a Roadmap, see below.

The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.


> > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > some time.
>
>
> How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a
> challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not
> like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved
> *the
> scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to
> hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
>

Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.

>
> Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that
> we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought
> for it.
>
> To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
>

My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
this year?

>
>
> > In the middle ground, there is the
> > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan
> > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging
> > by these events.
> >
>
> I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so
> far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
>

Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and
it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused to
even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.


   1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
   lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
   2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too
   difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
   3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to
   admit that it has not yet got round to doing it
   4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

Thank you for that.  In general an engagement works well when both, or all,
parties have something to bring to the table and something to gain from the
engagement (and certain other factors are in .  So for example, in the
field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between
members of the community with an interest in and experience of software
issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the
software roadmap would be effective.  I do hope the WMF decides to try that
some time.  In this instance, there seems little that members of the
community can do to help the WMF management handle a team problem that is
taking place entirely within the WMF as an organisation.  It may well be
that there are people in the community with experience in managing software
teams, but it seems unlikely that they will be in a position to give you
the help you need on the time scales that you need it.  Perhaps at some
later date the senior leadership will want to do a lessons learned exercise
and it might be that certain community members could help, but I would not
use up the valuable bandwidth of staff and volunteers giving a blo-by-blow
account of this particular incident.  In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging
by these events.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> Good to hear from you.
>
> "I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> productive
> form of engagement between the two sides."
>
> Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in this
> instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
>
> "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the
> Community."
>
> Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be
> learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> statement.
>
> /a
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> > answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the least
> > productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is what,
> if
> > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to
> > carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on
> > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> >
> > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by
> > Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson for
> > management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I have
> > advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
> at a
> > higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the
> > Foundation's reluctance to do that.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> > community
> > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team?
> Or
> > > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and
> > Z.
> > > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
> > second
> > > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our
> > > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> > >
> > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
> expressing
> > > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out.
> 2)
> > > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM
> > > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People
> > who
> > > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and
> > far
> > > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
> continue
> > > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food
> on
> > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
> > > movement will pick him up.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anna,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I
> did
> > > > > understand, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Sam Klein]

The sincerity and quality of communication in this thread, and is
deep-linked citations, made me grin in an outrageous week.  You are all
wonderful.

On the original subject: Interactives are increasingly satisfying to use;
hats off to those involved. No surprise they inspired this shaded
love-fest, and thanks for the active communication.

And, as there are few threads that cannot be improved with some
enthusiastic singing: Perhaps each new reply can contribute to a
karaoke-chain..
.
SJ

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> >
> > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> >
> > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the
> > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
> > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
> > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree is
> > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> >
>
> Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
>
> >
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make
> > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
or
> > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to
> > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile to
> > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
that
> > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked of
> > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> >
>
> I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
> time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
> about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
> to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
> with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
> provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
>
> In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
> reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
> this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
>
> >
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
> > like.
> >
>
> Thanks. I'll reach out.
>
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>>
> >>> Pete,
> >>
> >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
> >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
> >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
> >>
> >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
> >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved.
> >> Sometimes
> >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know
whether
> >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The
truth
> >> is
> >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication
that
> >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> >>
> >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being
> >> made.
> >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
> >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
you
> >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law
> >> and
> >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
> >>
> >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
> >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
> >>
> >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
> >> request to grant them.
> >>
> >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
> >>
> >>> tension with
> >>> another one:
> >>>
> >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
> >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
> >>> and largely 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

Hey Pine,
Thanks for all of the good ideas. I'll reach out to you.
As for the other suggestions, I appreciate them. I do a lot better and
understand a lot more in 1:1 communication, so I'd prefer to interview
people.
/a

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation
> about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a
> subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than
> a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that
> everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4.
> Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications
> office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many
> other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours,
> I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they
> foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF
> managers who can actually make changes happen.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller

Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Pine W]

Speaking of communications, it would help if I would practice what I
preach. Let me reword one problematic sentence: "Perhaps this could be the
start of a "Community-WMF Communications office hour that could happen on a
quarterly basis." Sorry for the extra email to fix that.

I'm not sure that one hour would be sufficient, or about the frequency of
the meetings. Perhaps you and people who help you to plan these meetings
could have some conversations about that.

Pine


On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation
> about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a
> subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than
> a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that
> everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4.
> Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications
> office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many
> other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours,
> I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they
> foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF
> managers who can actually make changes happen.
>
> Pine
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Pine W]

Hi Anna,

Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation
about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a
subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than
a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that
everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4.
Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications
office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many
other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours,
I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they
foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF
managers who can actually make changes happen.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

Rogol,

Good to hear from you.

"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive
form of engagement between the two sides."

Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?

"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the
Community."

Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
statement.

/a

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the least
> productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is what, if
> anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to
> carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on
> schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
>
> It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by
> Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson for
> management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I have
> advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and at a
> higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the
> Foundation's reluctance to do that.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> community
> > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or
> > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and
> Z.
> > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
> second
> > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our
> > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> >
> > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing
> > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2)
> > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM
> > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People
> who
> > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and
> far
> > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue
> > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on
> > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
> > movement will pick him up.
> >
> > Best
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anna,
> > > >
> > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> > > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
> interpreting
> > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
> their
> > > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> > > >
> > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think
> > the
> > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message
> on
> > > this
> > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
> > > necessitates
> > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> > > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
> > degree
> > > is
> > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
> Sad!).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
> > make
> > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James,
> DJ,
> > or
> > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing
> to
> > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
> > worthwhile
> > > to
> > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
> scale
> > > that
> > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
> > asked
> > > of
> > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them
> the
> > > time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a
> > discussion
> > > about authority. I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the least
productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is what, if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to
carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.

It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by
Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson for
management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and at a
higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the community
> thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or
> was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and Z.
> The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the second
> was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our
> opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
>
> Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing
> 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2)
> my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM
> movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People who
> both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and far
> between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue
> on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on
> the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
> movement will pick him up.
>
> Best
> James
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna,
> > >
> > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> > >
> > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> > >
> > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think
> the
> > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
> > this
> > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
> > necessitates
> > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
> degree
> > is
> > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> > >
> >
> > Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
> >
> > >
> > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
> make
> > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
> or
> > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to
> > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
> worthwhile
> > to
> > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
> > that
> > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
> asked
> > of
> > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> > >
> >
> > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
> > time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a
> discussion
> > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
> > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
> them
> > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
> > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
> >
> > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
> > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
> > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> >
> > >
> > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
> > > like.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. I'll reach out.
> >
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > >
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Anna,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pete,
> > >>
> > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think
> I
> > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[James Heilman]

I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)

Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing
1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2)
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia
movement will pick him up.

Best
James

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna,
> >
> > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> >
> > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> >
> > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the
> > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
> this
> > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
> necessitates
> > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree
> is
> > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
> >
>
> Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
>
> >
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make
> > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or
> > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to
> > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile
> to
> > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
> that
> > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked
> of
> > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
> >
>
> I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
> time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion
> about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
> to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them
> with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
> provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
>
> In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
> reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
> this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
>
> >
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
> > like.
> >
>
> Thanks. I'll reach out.
>
> >
> > -Pete
> >
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anna,
> >>>
> >>> Pete,
> >>
> >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
> >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
> >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
> >>
> >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
> >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved.
> >> Sometimes
> >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know
> whether
> >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth
> >> is
> >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
> >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> >>
> >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being
> >> made.
> >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
> once
> >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
> you
> >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law
> >> and
> >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Pete Forsyth]

On 01/25/2017 09:52 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!). 

:)

I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.

In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?

Ha! Maybe.

I haven't said it's unreasonable, and I'm not sure anybody else has, 
either. In fact, I think The DJ explicitly acknowledged some of the 
points in your initial message, and by my reading implicitly 
acknowledged others. I don't think anybody is singling out the "pause in 
explaining the pause" as unreasonable.


I've heard the request, and with all the considerations, sure, it seems 
reasonable enough. What I've tried to do is express what some of the 
costs of further delay are; but asserting costs is not the same thing as 
saying further delay is unreasonable. I read Pine as trying to put it in 
a broader context of problems that may be systemic; but I don't think 
that's the same as saying it's unreasonable, either. So, perhaps we're 
not all as far apart as it might appear?

I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
like.

Thanks. I'll reach out.

I'll have the karaoke machine ready!

-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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Anna,
>
> I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did
> understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
>
> As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
>
> I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the
> enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on this
> thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates
> addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a
> significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree is
> attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
>

Got it.  (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).

>
> As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make
> of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or
> anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to
> grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile to
> know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale that
> sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked of
> me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
>

I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
time that they asked for.  It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.

In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?

>
> I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd
> like.
>

Thanks. I'll reach out.

>
> -Pete
>
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
>
> On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Anna,
>>>
>>> Pete,
>>
>> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
>>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
>>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
>>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
>>>
>>
>> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
>>
>> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
>> communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved.
>> Sometimes
>> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether
>> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth
>> is
>> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
>> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
>>
>> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being
>> made.
>> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once
>> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you
>> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law
>> and
>> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
>>
>> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
>> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
>>
>> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
>> request to grant them.
>>
>> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
>>
>>> tension with
>>> another one:
>>>
>>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important
>>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex,
>>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list
>>> participants.
>>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a
>>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would
>>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind
>>> an
>>> effort to make it grow or sustain.
>>>
>>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
>> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES
>> 
>> and
>>
>> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers.
>> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the
>> interactive
>> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Pete Forsyth]

Anna,

I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did 
understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was 
inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.


As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting 
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their 
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.


I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the 
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on 
this thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that 
necessitates addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can 
have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever 
degree is attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.


As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make 
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, 
or anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing 
to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's 
worthwhile to know that the team needs more time, and plans to share 
more on a scale that sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something 
specific being asked of me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on 
what it is.


I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.

-Pete

[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:


Anna,


Pete,


Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?


I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.

No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved. Sometimes
there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether
we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth is
that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”

As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made.
As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and
worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.

As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.

The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
request to grant them.

If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in

tension with
another one:

Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants.
The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an
effort to make it grow or sustain.


Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES
 and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive
team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.

The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”


But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved
on by then.


I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software.
I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week,
however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still
stands.


-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


/a
[[User:Annaproject]]


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:


You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.

"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his
[her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they]
return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."

I take this point seriously and don't wish you to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Anna,
>

Pete,

>
> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?


I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.

No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved. Sometimes
there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether
we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth is
that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”

As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made.
As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and
worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.

As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.

The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
request to grant them.

If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
> tension with
> another one:
>
> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important
> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex,
> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants.
> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a
> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would
> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an
> effort to make it grow or sustain.
>

Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES
 and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive
team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.

The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”

>
> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved
> on by then.
>

I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software.
I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week,
however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still
stands.

>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>

/a
[[User:Annaproject]]

>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
> > You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> >
> > "An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his
> > [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they]
> > return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
> >
> > I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In
> > theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
> constraints.
> > There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
> there
> > are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets
> > the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
> this.
> > But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
> anyone
> > suggest that it was generalized across the org.
> >
> > What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
> this
> > one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
> allow
> > for one person to return to work?
> >
> > Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> >
> > Warmly,
> > /a
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna Stillwell  wrote:
> > >
> > > > […]
> > >
> > > > I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve
> > > heard
> > > > them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one
> > is
> > > > required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the
> > > most
> > > > information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go
> > through
> > > > considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> > > working
> > > > to establish some cultural standards 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Chris Koerner]

Today marks my 1 year anniversary with the WMF. What a ride it's been!

A little clarification, or a timeline if you will.

Work on Interactive was led by very energetic and talented technical folks
for a good chunk of time with out a lot structure around the work. Then,
about a quarter ago, the team tried to start with more planning - a
roadmap, team roles, checklists for deployment - the usual stuff. It didn't
go well. The structure was too burdensome for some team members and lacking
for others. It caused a bit of stress to all members of the team, myself
included. But, to be good stewards of our resources we need some structure.

Lacking that structure it was decided to put a pause on things, rethink the
approach, and figure out how this all fits into planning and strategy for
the comping months/years. In the middle of this was the holiday, dev summit
and WMF all-hands (a solid week away from the office for the WMF), then
Yuri's departure, and Katie's scheduled (and deserved) vacation. Looking
back at it, a mess of bad timing.

So, Dan posted the message on discovery-l. I can't speak for him, but my
interpretation was, "Hey, just a head's up. We're going to pause things
while we work some stuff out and we'll let you know more in the future". An
honest attempt to do what so many of us ask for - quick communication in
the open. Personal note, I really didn't expect so many people would
care/notice! I'm happy to see that I was wrong.

It's hard to talk about these things. It's a sign of vulnerability to do so
and this information puts you at risk for criticism and embarrassment
(deserved or otherwise!). We're professionals, we never make mistakes,
right? Nope. We do, and it's hard to talk about. It's also hard with
professional and legal reasons when talking about individual staff. Heck,
even writing this reply I'm worried I'm going to say something wrong. :)

Now a few of the folks in Discovery are coming up with a plan, to be
discussed with our director upon their return from vacation. I personally
believe it would be wrong to make a decision without their involvement. I,
like many of you, personally hope we figure out a good way to keep the work
the interactive team has done moving forward. Once we have a plan, we'll
let you all know.

At this point I feel like I'm repeating what others have already said. :) I
don't expect this will put all minds at ease, but I too ask for your
patience and assume good faith.

I’ve always respected Derk-Jan's perspective and thoughts in the community.
I appreciate his concerns and I hope he continues bring them forth.


Yours,
Chris Koerner
Community Liaison - Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Pete Forsyth]

Anna,

Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right? If so, I
agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in tension with
another one:

Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants.
The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an
effort to make it grow or sustain.

But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved
on by then.

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
>
> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his
> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they]
> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
>
> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In
> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face constraints.
> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then, there
> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets
> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on this.
> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did anyone
> suggest that it was generalized across the org.
>
> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in this
> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and allow
> for one person to return to work?
>
> Does that seem like a way to move forward?
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt 
> wrote:
>
> > Anna Stillwell  wrote:
> >
> > > […]
> >
> > > I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve
> > heard
> > > them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one
> is
> > > required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the
> > most
> > > information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go
> through
> > > considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> > working
> > > to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We
> want
> > > people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes
> > that
> > > can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations
> > well
> > > in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so
> > you
> > > understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
> >
> > > […]
> >
> > I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> > ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> > ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
> > employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
> > not experience their time off as a period where his work
> > load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> > where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> > Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> > should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> > be backed and explainable by others.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
> Fuller
>
> Anna Stillwell
> Director of Culture
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[James Heilman]

Agree with Tim, one would image that a fair bit of thought would have gone
into a decision such as this. That it would have occurred over multiple
meetings with substantial input from various parts of the organization. I
think it is reasonable to give the WMF some time to comment on this further.

Yuri Astrakhan is still listed as "Interactive Tech Team Lead"
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Yurik Further clarification around that
including comments from him would be useful. I know from my meetings with
Yuri over the years he is very dedicated to the work of developing tools
that help Wiki(m)pedia build rich content.

J

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> Anna Stillwell  wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve
> heard
> > them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
> > required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the
> most
> > information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through
> > considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> working
> > to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We want
> > people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes
> that
> > can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations
> well
> > in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so
> you
> > understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
>
> > […]
>
> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
> employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
> not experience their time off as a period where his work
> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> be backed and explainable by others.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.

"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his
[her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they]
return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."

I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In
theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then, there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets
the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.

What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and allow
for one person to return to work?

Does that seem like a way to move forward?

Warmly,
/a

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> Anna Stillwell  wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve
> heard
> > them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
> > required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the
> most
> > information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through
> > considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> working
> > to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We want
> > people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes
> that
> > can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations
> well
> > in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so
> you
> > understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
>
> > […]
>
> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
> employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
> not experience their time off as a period where his work
> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> be backed and explainable by others.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller

Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Tim Landscheidt]

Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> […]

> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve heard
> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the most
> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through
> considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is working
> to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We want
> people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes that
> can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations well
> in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so you
> understand one bias I bring to this conversation.

> […]

I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
not experience their time off as a period where his work
load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
be backed and explainable by others.

Tim


___
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] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

I have just been informed that Yuri is no longer with the WMF. I was not
aware. I think he might have left within the past 10 days, or perhaps I am
just way out of touch.

Whatever the case - that is all the more reason to seize the moment!
Brilliant people come and go in the wiki community, and when they are gone,
it becomes more difficult to access the institutional knowledge they had.
Catch people when they are presenting!

Yuri is a Wikipedian to the core and I expect him to be around as a
volunteer, but still - I wish it were easier for more people to present
their stories more often in more attractive formats, whether video,
interviews, or anything else that has a human element of reporting in it.

yours,



On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I do not know the situation with the Interactive Team but among other
> things, there is a wiki community request for better communication about
> projects. I would like to share something positive that already happens,
> and which is an opportunity for better communication going forward.
>
> I happen to live in New York City, and one of the developers on this team
> happens to live here also.
>
> Yuri Astrakhan
> 
>
> In NYC in the last year we have 1-2 administrative meetups a month for
> people to talk about coordinating Wikimedia projects. Yuri has presented at
> several of these local meetups to 200+ people total in the past few months.
> He is a great speaker who pleases audiences of developers, and audiences of
> general Wikipedians, and audiences of people who come to Wikipedia meetups
> without ever having edited any wiki before. Among others, he works on the
> projects mentioned in this email thread -
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> I cannot speak to the entire challenge of improving communication among
> WMF developers, the regular Wiki community like subscribers to this list,
> people who request better on-wiki documentation, and the general public,
> but I can say that I have felt that there was some loss when someone like
> Yuri is so personable, involved, and talented as a speaker and yet has
> limited opportunity to be heard. He is great in person, and when I hear
> him, I wish his presentations could be recorded and shared. Here is one
> attempt that we in NYC made to record him on Wikipedia Day, 15 January.
>  Jan_15_2017_-_04_Multimedia_-_Tech_Panel.ogg>
>
> If the presentations which people like Yuri already make were recorded and
> better circulated, then perhaps some problems related to lack of
> communication would be lessened.
>
> I think there is some demand in the wiki community for more access to time
> in front of a camera to give presentations. NYC has the privilege of
> getting to hear a lot of great speakers in person. Globally at local
> meetups everywhere and even at Wikimania events, many talented people put a
> lot of labor and insight into the presentations they do. Usually those
> presentations do not persist beyond the live performance. When the
> presentation is video recorded, it usually has low quality audio and video
> that is not of the standard that many people expect from YouTube and other
> similar sites, and I think that the challenge of producing good video is
> more of a barrier to communication than lack of great presenters with
> interesting things to say. Encouraging people to do video presentations
> might not be the solution to communication challenges, but when there is
> someone who puts the work into making a great in-person presentation, then
> I wish it were easier to record and share it. I have not been satisfied
> with most of the wiki-related recordings produced, except for the most
> professional ones made with professional equipment and editing. I wish that
> there could be more video support getting more interviews and updates from
> more people at wiki events around the world.
>
> I have been very pleased with the quality of in-person, in NYC
> presentations that Yuri has shared about maps and graphs. I think that he
> and others like him would use opportunities to be interviewed and better
> presented in wiki community media, and I think that the community wants
> better in-community media coverage. I feel grateful to have heard Yuri in
> my own city and the WMF should be glad to have someone who is a developer
> and such a great speaker.
>
> yours,
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Anna Stillwell  > wrote:
>
>>  Hey DJ
>>
>> These seem like reasonable concerns and I am glad you and others are
>> raising them. I hope you continue to do so. We’re all getting better at
>> working together and it is clear that the foundation has made mistakes in
>> the past, so it is right and good to hold 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

I do not know the situation with the Interactive Team but among other
things, there is a wiki community request for better communication about
projects. I would like to share something positive that already happens,
and which is an opportunity for better communication going forward.

I happen to live in New York City, and one of the developers on this team
happens to live here also.

Yuri Astrakhan


In NYC in the last year we have 1-2 administrative meetups a month for
people to talk about coordinating Wikimedia projects. Yuri has presented at
several of these local meetups to 200+ people total in the past few months.
He is a great speaker who pleases audiences of developers, and audiences of
general Wikipedians, and audiences of people who come to Wikipedia meetups
without ever having edited any wiki before. Among others, he works on the
projects mentioned in this email thread -





I cannot speak to the entire challenge of improving communication among WMF
developers, the regular Wiki community like subscribers to this list,
people who request better on-wiki documentation, and the general public,
but I can say that I have felt that there was some loss when someone like
Yuri is so personable, involved, and talented as a speaker and yet has
limited opportunity to be heard. He is great in person, and when I hear
him, I wish his presentations could be recorded and shared. Here is one
attempt that we in NYC made to record him on Wikipedia Day, 15 January.


If the presentations which people like Yuri already make were recorded and
better circulated, then perhaps some problems related to lack of
communication would be lessened.

I think there is some demand in the wiki community for more access to time
in front of a camera to give presentations. NYC has the privilege of
getting to hear a lot of great speakers in person. Globally at local
meetups everywhere and even at Wikimania events, many talented people put a
lot of labor and insight into the presentations they do. Usually those
presentations do not persist beyond the live performance. When the
presentation is video recorded, it usually has low quality audio and video
that is not of the standard that many people expect from YouTube and other
similar sites, and I think that the challenge of producing good video is
more of a barrier to communication than lack of great presenters with
interesting things to say. Encouraging people to do video presentations
might not be the solution to communication challenges, but when there is
someone who puts the work into making a great in-person presentation, then
I wish it were easier to record and share it. I have not been satisfied
with most of the wiki-related recordings produced, except for the most
professional ones made with professional equipment and editing. I wish that
there could be more video support getting more interviews and updates from
more people at wiki events around the world.

I have been very pleased with the quality of in-person, in NYC
presentations that Yuri has shared about maps and graphs. I think that he
and others like him would use opportunities to be interviewed and better
presented in wiki community media, and I think that the community wants
better in-community media coverage. I feel grateful to have heard Yuri in
my own city and the WMF should be glad to have someone who is a developer
and such a great speaker.

yours,


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>  Hey DJ
>
> These seem like reasonable concerns and I am glad you and others are
> raising them. I hope you continue to do so. We’re all getting better at
> working together and it is clear that the foundation has made mistakes in
> the past, so it is right and good to hold us accountable. I mean that
> sincerely.
>
> I’ve heard a few preliminary answers offered. As I see it, it seems like
> rather than waiting to get everything perfect (and likely with a bit of
> spin), these people are trying to communicate what they know when they know
> it. I support them for doing so and hope that all of us in the foundation
> continue in this direction. But there is a challenge to this approach also…
> when you share early, you might not yet have all of the answers. Sometimes,
> but not always, mutual disclosure may require some patience while we all
> muddle through and arrive at shared understanding.
>
> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve heard
> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the most
> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Anna Stillwell]

 Hey DJ

These seem like reasonable concerns and I am glad you and others are
raising them. I hope you continue to do so. We’re all getting better at
working together and it is clear that the foundation has made mistakes in
the past, so it is right and good to hold us accountable. I mean that
sincerely.

I’ve heard a few preliminary answers offered. As I see it, it seems like
rather than waiting to get everything perfect (and likely with a bit of
spin), these people are trying to communicate what they know when they know
it. I support them for doing so and hope that all of us in the foundation
continue in this direction. But there is a challenge to this approach also…
when you share early, you might not yet have all of the answers. Sometimes,
but not always, mutual disclosure may require some patience while we all
muddle through and arrive at shared understanding.

I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve heard
them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the most
information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through
considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is working
to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We want
people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes that
can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations well
in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so you
understand one bias I bring to this conversation.

Last, but not least, it’s not always as easy as it seems. This
communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved. Sometimes
there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether
we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth is
that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.

I’m wondering if we can grant their two requests, can we wait for a return
from vacation and a clarification of some kind will follow?

Next time I see you, I hope we can have a beer and argue about something
something.

Warmly,
/a

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi all,
> > The Interactive Team in Discovery is in the process of putting its work
> on
> > pause. The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable
> and
> > maintainable state.
> > Currently, work on new features is on hold. It is not yet known what the
> > timeline is for this transition to a paused state, or whether there will
> be
> > further deployments of features that have already been completed. I will
> > update this list when there is more information.
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> > --
> > Dan Garry
> > Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> > Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> So it seems all work on Maps, Graphs and other interactive features is
> going to be halted pretty soon. I was directed at this notification after a
> Maps ticket mentioned:
>
> With the team winding down
>
>
> To which I asked:
>
> > Why is the team winding down ?
>
>
> To which Dan Garry responded:
>
> > There were expectations that were set regarding things such as team
> goals,
> > working collaboratively with stakeholders, and advance notice to
> > communities, that were repeatedly not met by the team.
>
>
> And he pointed me to this discovery mailing list announcement, which well
> isn't really an explanation as much as a statement on the effect that
> 'winding down' will have.
>
> My interpretation of the information up to here was: "we are dissolving
> this team because it didn't perform and by posting to discovery mailing
> list we did the minimal effort required to notify people, but lets hope
> nobody notices what the notification really means"
> At the same time Dan's words are a rather hefty review on the performance
> of a team, which I'm not used to seeing from WMF. Refreshing, but unusual.
>
> This annoys me and I answer:
>
> > 1: I'd expect this to be announced on wikimedia-l, if we start a team we
> > always seem more than anxious to do so.
> > 2: I'd like some details. I thought we had left behind all the "let's try
> > and hide this and hope no one notices it"-shit in 2016.
> > 3: Thank you team ! You did some great work, and it was more productive
> > and groundbreaking than many other teams have been able to do in 5 years.
>
>
> A bit hyperbolic on all fronts, I admit.
>
> To which Dan responds with:
>
> > I am not the person who made this decision. I do not know all of the
> > reasons it was made. The person who made the decision is on vacation for
> > the next few weeks. I am trying my best to communicate as much as I can
> in
> > her absence, which is why I made a public announcement of all that I know
> > now rather than waiting weeks for my manager to return. I am afraid that
> > some patience 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

[Wes Moran]

Hello everyone,

We introduced this upcoming change last week[1] on the Discovery list. At
the time, we didn’t have the full details to share, but wanted to let
people directly engaging with that team know that some changes were being
planned. We were originally going to share more details once they were
finalized. However, I realized after reading the post from Derk-Jan that we
should share the information we have now.

The work of the Interactive team[2], a sub-team within the team focused on
Maps and Graphs, will be temporarily paused beginning this quarter. These
efforts are important, and the Product Department is committed to
continuing them. We expect to fulfill our Annual Plan commitments related
to the Interactive team’s work, and are currently determining how best to
make this transition. But we need to take some time to determine the best
path forward for this team within Discovery.

We’ll communicate more broadly about the future of this work as the
situation evolves. Until then, we are going to review current bugs and
tasks that were committed to in the Annual Plan, as well as requests in the
community wishlist, and decide when and how to proceed.

We welcome questions and conversation, but have to ask some patience as
some members of the team are out of office at the moment.  Please direct
further questions on the topic to the Discovery list.[3]

Thanks,
Wes
VP of Product, Wikimedia Foundation

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/discovery/2017-January/001421.html

[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Interactive_Team

[3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery



On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman <
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > The Interactive Team in Discovery is in the process of putting its work
on
> > pause. The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable
and
> > maintainable state.
> > Currently, work on new features is on hold. It is not yet known what the
> > timeline is for this transition to a paused state, or whether there
will be
> > further deployments of features that have already been completed. I will
> > update this list when there is more information.
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> > --
> > Dan Garry
> > Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> > Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> So it seems all work on Maps, Graphs and other interactive features is
> going to be halted pretty soon. I was directed at this notification after
a
> Maps ticket mentioned:
>
> With the team winding down
>
>
> To which I asked:
>
> > Why is the team winding down ?
>
>
> To which Dan Garry responded:
>
> > There were expectations that were set regarding things such as team
goals,
> > working collaboratively with stakeholders, and advance notice to
> > communities, that were repeatedly not met by the team.
>
>
> And he pointed me to this discovery mailing list announcement, which well
> isn't really an explanation as much as a statement on the effect that
> 'winding down' will have.
>
> My interpretation of the information up to here was: "we are dissolving
> this team because it didn't perform and by posting to discovery mailing
> list we did the minimal effort required to notify people, but lets hope
> nobody notices what the notification really means"
> At the same time Dan's words are a rather hefty review on the performance
> of a team, which I'm not used to seeing from WMF. Refreshing, but unusual.
>
> This annoys me and I answer:
>
> > 1: I'd expect this to be announced on wikimedia-l, if we start a team we
> > always seem more than anxious to do so.
> > 2: I'd like some details. I thought we had left behind all the "let's
try
> > and hide this and hope no one notices it"-shit in 2016.
> > 3: Thank you team ! You did some great work, and it was more productive
> > and groundbreaking than many other teams have been able to do in 5
years.
>
>
> A bit hyperbolic on all fronts, I admit.
>
> To which Dan responds with:
>
> > I am not the person who made this decision. I do not know all of the
> > reasons it was made. The person who made the decision is on vacation for
> > the next few weeks. I am trying my best to communicate as much as I can
in
> > her absence, which is why I made a public announcement of all that I
know
> > now rather than waiting weeks for my manager to return. I am afraid that
> > some patience is required until Katie gets back from vacation.
>
>
> So now Dan doesn't know enough to be able to discuss this, even though he
> gave a rather destructive team review earlier.
>
> 1: This is exactly the kind of communication that 'the community' keeps
> complaining about. Reactive instead of proactive. Evasive instead of
> transparent. Now volunteers need to spend time to figure out what is
> happening here ? This has cost me over 3 hours today. I would have liked
to
> have spent that time differently.
> 2: It shouldn't matter that Katie is on holidays, I'd assume/hope someone
> takes over her duties while she is away