Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[David Gerard]

On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker  wrote:

> I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor
> grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully
> embraced by the community.  It's not entirely perfect for all use cases,
> but it is so much better than anything we had before.  It's become so
> natural to ping someone with {{u|username here}} that I can barely remember
> a time when it wasn't the norm.



And users of other MediaWikis now expect it. (Coming soon to
RationalWiki! Probably.)


- d.

___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

Anthony,

I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are
entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made
this distinction clearer from the outset:
1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is
what I think you are discussing; and I agree, it's very important, and it
would ideally be conducted with somebody other than WMF in the driver's
seat.
2. A general practice of debriefing significant projects. I consider
organizational learning to be the primary benefit of this (so that mistakes
are repeated less often, and practices improve); so whether it attracts any
non-staff's attention is not of central importance in my view. But it *is*
very important that it include reflection from high in the org chart (which
was the case with the Belfer Center debrief, but not with the Media Viewer
debrief).

#2 is the one I had in mind for this particular thread, but #1 is very
important too.

Thank you for the kind words about my participation in #1. I do think,
generally, people with a good understanding of Wikimedia's history and
values, but without recent organizational ties, should be included. Whether
or not I'm right for the task, I'll leave aside for the moment.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
> Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
> of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
> wouldn't bother reading their reports.
>
> If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.
>
> On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
> > exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads.
> (And
> > some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
> > dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
> > aligns well with what I know.
> >
> > I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
> > publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like
> this.
> > Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it;
> > but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of
> all
> > significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those
> > doing the work in the future.
> >
> > What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
> > *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable,
> of
> > course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at
> > what it does over time.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong link. It's here.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on
> Wikipediocracy
> > > > that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  > 
> > > >  ');>>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Brandon and Sarah:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow
> here,
> > > as
> > > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
> > divisive
> > > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and
> what
> > > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
> > > Flow,
> > > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
> > you
> > > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> > > >> organization
> > > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> > > >> repeating
> > > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each
> other?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Pete
> > > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> > petefors...@gmail.com >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
> > but
> > > >> > > embraced?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What would 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
wouldn't bother reading their reports.

If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
> exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And
> some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
> dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
> aligns well with what I know.
>
> I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
> publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this.
> Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it;
> but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all
> significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those
> doing the work in the future.
>
> What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
> *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of
> course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at
> what it does over time.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole  > wrote:
>
> > Wrong link. It's here.
> >
> >
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
> >
> > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole  > wrote:
> >
> > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> > > that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
> > >
> > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  
> > > ');>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Brandon and Sarah:
> > >>
> > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here,
> > as
> > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
> divisive
> > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> > >>
> > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
> > Flow,
> > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
> you
> > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> > >> organization
> > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> > >> repeating
> > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
> > >>
> > >> -Pete
> > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV  >
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> petefors...@gmail.com >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
> but
> > >> > > embraced?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What would need to be different?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
> > would
> > >> > get
> > >> > > better at asking and exploring.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community,
> which
> > is
> > >> > why
> > >> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta
> talk
> > >> page,
> > >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find
> > out
> > >> > what editors need.
> > >> >
> > >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> > >> There
> > >> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
> > find
> > >> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page
> that
> > >> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome
> to
> > >> join
> > >> > the discussion."
> > >> >
> > >> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
> > >> community
> > >> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> > >> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting).
> People
> > >> who
> > >> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
> > that
> > >> > thing by the Foundation.
> > >> >
> > >> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't.
> We
> > >> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
> > >> was a
> > >> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
> > would
> > >> > explain that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi Anthony,

Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And
some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
aligns well with what I know.

I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this.
Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it;
but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all
significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those
doing the work in the future.

What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
*collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of
course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at
what it does over time.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Wrong link. It's here.
>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
>
> On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> > that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
> >
> > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  > > wrote:
> >
> >> Brandon and Sarah:
> >>
> >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here,
> as
> >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
> >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> >>
> >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
> Flow,
> >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> >> organization
> >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> >> repeating
> >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> >> > > embraced?
> >> > >
> >> > > What would need to be different?
> >> > >
> >> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
> would
> >> > get
> >> > > better at asking and exploring.
> >> > >
> >> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which
> is
> >> > why
> >> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
> >> page,
> >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find
> out
> >> > what editors need.
> >> >
> >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> >> There
> >> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to
> find
> >> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> >> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
> >> join
> >> > the discussion."
> >> >
> >> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
> >> community
> >> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> >> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
> >> who
> >> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in
> that
> >> > thing by the Foundation.
> >> >
> >> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> >> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
> >> was a
> >> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they
> would
> >> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
> >> >
> >> > Sarah
> >> >
> >> > ​
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> ___
> >> 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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  > wrote:
>
>> Brandon and Sarah:
>>
>> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
>> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
>> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
>>
>> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
>> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
>> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
>> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
>> organization
>> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
>> repeating
>> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
>> > > embraced?
>> > >
>> > > What would need to be different?
>> > >
>> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
>> > get
>> > > better at asking and exploring.
>> > >
>> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
>> > why
>> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
>> page,
>> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
>> > what editors need.
>> >
>> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
>> There
>> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
>> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
>> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
>> join
>> > the discussion."
>> >
>> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
>> community
>> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
>> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
>> who
>> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
>> > thing by the Foundation.
>> >
>> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
>> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
>> was a
>> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
>> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
>> >
>> > Sarah
>> >
>> > ​
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
>
>
>

-- 
Anthony Cole
___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that
seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html

On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Brandon and Sarah:
>
> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization
> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating
> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV  > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > > embraced?
> > >
> > > What would need to be different?
> > >
> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
> > get
> > > better at asking and exploring.
> > >
> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
> > why
> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
> page,
> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
> > what editors need.
> >
> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> There
> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
> join
> > the discussion."
> >
> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> > thing by the Foundation.
> >
> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was
> a
> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > ​
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Jane Darnell]

Yes!!! This is why I haven't spent much time contributing on Meta at all
since then:
" We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
explain that people like white space. And so on."

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:42 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > embraced?
> >
> > What would need to be different?
> >
> > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
> get
> > better at asking and exploring.
> >
> > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
> why
> (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page,
> you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
> what editors need.
>
> That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There
> was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join
> the discussion."
>
> So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> thing by the Foundation.
>
> We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
> better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> explain that people like white space. And so on.
>
> Sarah
>
> ​
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-22 10:31, Erik Moeller wrote:

2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to 
state

that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk
pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.


Our early communications approach about Flow was terrible, it is true,
and I take responsibility for not handling it better. I saw some
messages that made me cringe, but I didn't step in to say "This is not
how we want to do things". I'm sorry. As for my own comms style when I
was around the wikis, I think people have often found it arrogant and
thereby offputting. I've learned over the years that folks who are
external to the community are often naturally better at this. It's
tempting as a (formerly very active) community member to draw on your
own expertise and hopes to the point that you're no longer listening,
or seen to be listening.

I believe Flow-related communications improved significantly later on,
but by that time a lot of bridges had already been burned^Wnuked from
orbit. I think this early history significantly impacted perception
especially in the English Wikipedia community, to the point that
raising the name of the project immediately triggers lots of people in
that community. At the same time, the more proactive and careful
approach later fostered some use cases, like the Catalan Wikipedia
converting its entire Village Pump over:

<...>


Hi Erik,

thank for your reply. I also fully agree that communication over FLOW 
was considerably, drastically improved, making it possible to introduce 
trials at other projects, e.g. on Wikidata. This is exactly what I meant 
yesterday when I said that things became much better in 2015 from my 
perspective as a volunteer.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Erik Moeller]

2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state
> that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk
> pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.

Our early communications approach about Flow was terrible, it is true,
and I take responsibility for not handling it better. I saw some
messages that made me cringe, but I didn't step in to say "This is not
how we want to do things". I'm sorry. As for my own comms style when I
was around the wikis, I think people have often found it arrogant and
thereby offputting. I've learned over the years that folks who are
external to the community are often naturally better at this. It's
tempting as a (formerly very active) community member to draw on your
own expertise and hopes to the point that you're no longer listening,
or seen to be listening.

I believe Flow-related communications improved significantly later on,
but by that time a lot of bridges had already been burned^Wnuked from
orbit. I think this early history significantly impacted perception
especially in the English Wikipedia community, to the point that
raising the name of the project immediately triggers lots of people in
that community. At the same time, the more proactive and careful
approach later fostered some use cases, like the Catalan Wikipedia
converting its entire Village Pump over:

https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Novetats
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Multim%C3%A8dia
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Propostes
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Tecnicismes
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:La_taverna/Ajuda

I think a fair evaluation of the project's merits will need to look at
what actually happened in those communities that adopted it, whether
it's for wholesale usage on pages like this, or on user talk pages.
And if the numbers look positive and there's something that can be
done to heal the hurt that was caused in how the project was handled
early on, I'm happy to help if I can, even just by saying "Sorry".

Erik

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-22 04:42, SarahSV wrote:

So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the 
community

as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People 
who

had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
thing by the Foundation.

We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search 
was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they 
would

explain that people like white space. And so on.

Sarah



Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to 
state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using 
talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[geni]

On 22 February 2016 at 01:06, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result
> of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan
> Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov,
> Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt,
> and Tisza Gergő. I think it is fair to say that we had a general consensus
> that:
>
> When something does not go well (for instance, various software releases),
> it would be highly valuable for the Wikimedia Foundation's senior
> leadership to prioritize creating a thoughtful and official post-mortem
> document and discussion.
>

So they want there to be even more incentives for the foundation never to
admit failure?


-- 
geni
___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis,
once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded
outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable
foundation whose mission would cover this?

Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
> > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I
> > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
> >
> > But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of
> honest
> > exchange and understanding could be very healing.
>
>
> Thanks Sarah, I agree. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I think it's
> especially valuable, for a significant issue, when someone in senior
> leadership initiates the process, and takes a sustained interest in it
> going well. The need for post-mortems presents, I would think, a good
> opportunity for Lila (or any Board member) to begin taking a path forward.
>
> Perhaps some reflection (either privately or publicly) on the impact of the
> Belfer Center document would be a good starting point. (I don't suggest
> that process was entirely perfect, but I do think it was effective.) Since
> it predates Lila's hire, it might not carry as much baggage as other
> topics.
>
> One small quibble -- I don't think "truth and reconciliation" is the best
> framing, though in the current context I can see the relevance. But I would
> suggest that in general, publicly documenting successful and unsuccessful
> efforts is a fantastic way for organizations of all kinds to encourage
> healthy communication and ongoing learning. It doesn't need to be a big
> dramatic thing, and it doesn't need to be very time-consuming, to be
> effective.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
> helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I
> talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
>
> But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of honest
> exchange and understanding could be very healing.


Thanks Sarah, I agree. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I think it's
especially valuable, for a significant issue, when someone in senior
leadership initiates the process, and takes a sustained interest in it
going well. The need for post-mortems presents, I would think, a good
opportunity for Lila (or any Board member) to begin taking a path forward.

Perhaps some reflection (either privately or publicly) on the impact of the
Belfer Center document would be a good starting point. (I don't suggest
that process was entirely perfect, but I do think it was effective.) Since
it predates Lila's hire, it might not carry as much baggage as other topics.

One small quibble -- I don't think "truth and reconciliation" is the best
framing, though in the current context I can see the relevance. But I would
suggest that in general, publicly documenting successful and unsuccessful
efforts is a fantastic way for organizations of all kinds to encourage
healthy communication and ongoing learning. It doesn't need to be a big
dramatic thing, and it doesn't need to be very time-consuming, to be
effective.

-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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:42 AM, SarahSV  wrote:

> That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There
> was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join
> the discussion."
>
> So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> thing by the Foundation.
>
> We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
> better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> explain that people like white space. And so on.



I must say, what Sarah says here rather matches my recollection.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Brandon Harris]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> 
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic?

Not in the slightest.  Having a conversation about anything this 
divisive is completely pointless and draining; no one listens to anyone else 
and everyone blames everyone else for not listening - especially because 
everyone claims "I'm not being heard" (even if they are, and are just disagreed 
with.)

I could write up a whole big thing about this to try to create clarity 
but it doesn't matter; the only responses will be claims that the WMF (and 
myself in particular) are operating only in bad faith or "being rude" or we'll 
have some chuckleheads (who never try to help, claim to be expert engineers, 
but never seem to be able to back up those claims) talk shit about the skill 
sets in engineering and derail the conversation.

So no.  I don't believe this will be useful.

---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey




___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization
> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating
> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>
> ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I
talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.

But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of honest
exchange and understanding could be very healing.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Risker]

On 21 February 2016 at 22:42, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > embraced?
> >
> > What would need to be different?
> >
> > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
> get
> > better at asking and exploring.
> >
> > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
> why
> (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page,
> you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
> what editors need.
>
> That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There
> was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join
> the discussion."
>
> So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> thing by the Foundation.
>
> We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
> better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> explain that people like white space. And so on.
>
> Sarah
>
> ​
>


I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor
grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully
embraced by the community.  It's not entirely perfect for all use cases,
but it is so much better than anything we had before.  It's become so
natural to ping someone with {{u|username here}} that I can barely remember
a time when it wasn't the norm.

RIsker/Anne
___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[SarahSV]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

>
> Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> embraced?
>
> What would need to be different?
>
> These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get
> better at asking and exploring.
>
> ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is why
(so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk page,
you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
what editors need.

That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to. There
was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to join
the discussion."

So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
thing by the Foundation.

We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a
better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
explain that people like white space. And so on.

Sarah

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Brandon Harris]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> 
>  Here, Brandon, I think you're
> implying that there is fundamental resistance to change. 

Let me disabuse you of a notion:  I am not _implying_ this.  I am 
_directly stating it._

---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey




___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge  wrote:
>
> I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ...

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris  wrote:

> Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all
> attempts to fix this have been shot down with venom.


This is a very important point to discuss -- and actually circles us back
to the topic of post-mortems.

When software features are unpopular, it is very important to carefully
consider the reasons for their unpopularity. Here, Brandon, I think you're
implying that there is fundamental resistance to change. I disagree; I
think the attempts (Liquid Threads and Flow), though there was great
technical merit in them, were approached in ways that felt threatening to
Wikimedians.

If we disagree on this, that's OK -- I don't expect to resolve this
disagreement here on the list. But I do think we should have a thorough,
careful evaluation of how the Liquid Threads and Flow projects were
approached. It should include what factors contributed to and detracted
from their popularity among Wikimedians. That, I think, would establish a
shared understanding that would support discourse about whether or not it
is possible to design better discussion software, and how that could be
more effectively approached.

Why were past efforts shot down?

Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
embraced?

What would need to be different?

These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get
better at asking and exploring.

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

[Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

The discussion about post-mortems arose rather organically, not as a result
of a decision to use a certain medium. The participants were: Jonathan
Cardy, Erik Möller, Dariusz Jemielniak, myself, Ben Creasy, Asaf Bartov,
Jon Beasley-Murray, Bence Damakos, Luis Villa, Eddie Erhart, Liam Wyatt,
and Tisza Gergő. I think it is fair to say that we had a general consensus
that:

When something does not go well (for instance, various software releases),
it would be highly valuable for the Wikimedia Foundation's senior
leadership to prioritize creating a thoughtful and official post-mortem
document and discussion. Post-mortems can support learning by the
organization, and also by other people and organizations who might take on
similar projects, and can make it possible for those who feel unheard to
"move on" (as is so frequently requested), with the knowledge that their
opinions have been heard and may be incorporated into future efforts. The
one time the organization had such an executive-led post-mortem was about
the Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence; I think we all agreed the
outcomes of this post-mortem were valuable:[1] In addition, Gergő mentioned
his post-mortem on the Media Viewer, which I (and perhaps some others) had
not been previously aware of.[2]

The discussion concluded with the idea that perhaps the present crisis
offers a good opportunity to instill a culture of reflecting on mistakes
into the organization's ethos. Since Dariusz was involved in the
discussion, I'm confident that idea will be brought back to the Board, and
I view this as a positive outcome.

Below, I'll paste Erik's initial comment, which began with the words "For
the record..." (which I take as an indication he is willing to have the
words republished), and which generated 29 "Likes" (far more than I'm used
to seeing for any comment at Wikipedia Weekly).

Erik Möller:
For the record, the desire to "hit the deadline" for the VisualEditor
release extended beyond any grant agreement. (If that had been all there
was to it, I would have pushed back.) The Board independently had
repeatedly pushed to meet the arbitrary schedule, and even the team itself
was motivated at the time to finally go in front of a larger audience, as I
think James would attest. The project had already been delayed repeatedly;
there was even impatience in parts of the community and the press.

So there was a general, shared feeling that we needed to do better. I take
responsibility for not putting on the brakes; it was due to my own lack of
experience and focus at the time.

My takeaway is that we simply didn't yet have mature processes in place for
a release of this scope and complexity. For instance, even the community
liaison support was conceived at the last minute. We made a lot of changes
in the years that followed, some under Sue (e.g., addition of a "Beta
Features" program, improved testing infrastructure, QA support), some under
Lila (focus on performance & analytics), some after I left. I'm sure in
some respects there's still lots of room for improvement in engineering
processes.

I agree with Ori's point on the list, however, that most of this continuous
improvement has been going on in spite of, not because of, what's been
happening at the top. That's in many ways how it should be -- WMF's
engineering organization has the capacity for independent self-improvement
in all areas. But of course the drama that's going on right now is entirely
avoidable and depressing, and if it continues, will damage existing
capabilities and lead to regressions in important areas as key people leave.

I don't have regrets about leaving -- I was going to stick around for
another 1-2 years at most; I was never cut out to be a lifer, and I left
voluntarily because it was clear things were going to just continue to
deteriorate at the top. But if some of the key folks in engineering left,
that would really really suck. You don't want that to happen, trust me.
These are good, super-talented people, and the institutional/technical
memory that would leave with them would set the org back severely.
(end of Erik's comment)

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Retrospective

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> For those not following, I recommend the discussion in response to Jonathan
> Cardy's comment here:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/960989863948845/
>
> Anthony Cole
> ___
> 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,
>