Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread ENWP Pine



Sigh. This is a difficult situation. I don't think anyone has suggested that 
firing Gayle or Philippe should happen. However, I have concerns about keeping 
Gayle in the Chief Talent and Culture Officer position. I directed that concern 
to her and I want to hear what she thinks. There may be good reasons to keep 
her in that position, on the other hand it might be better if she had some time 
to learn in a WMF position for which she's a better fit at the moment. At a top 
5 website I think the performance expectations for C-level positions are high 
with good reason. I have significant concerns when someone with many years of 
leadership development experience makes the kind of mistakes that she appears 
to have made, especially when that person is the C-level officer that is 
supposed to be the subject matter expert in that area for all of WMF and that 
person is heavily involved in selecting the next ED. My experiences with Gayle 
prior to this one were positive and I've heard good things about her from 
others, but this situation should be examined with great care.

I currently hope that Gayle stays with WMF, but perhaps in a different position 
for awhile with the option of returning to the C-level some distance in the 
future. I want to hear what Gayle thinks. My views at this point are based on 
the incomplete information that's publicly available, and there are important 
unanswered questions in this situation. I hope we learn more from Gayle.

I know that the easy thing to do is to drop this issue and move on to the next 
problem, but I agree with Thomasz that easy thing to do isn't necessarily the 
best thing to do. Sometimes the best things and the right things involve asking 
hard questions and having difficult conversations.

 I think it's probably tough on a lot of us to 
read and participate in this discussion. On-wiki discussions about whether 
people should be de-adminned or blocked
 are often public, and while I think it's appropriate that we have this 
difficult conversation in public since the actions that started this 
situation were public, this is an awfully difficult situation and I'm sorry 
that we're all in it. We need to deal with it as best we can. I wish it was 
easy.

Pine

  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread David Gerard
On 26 May 2013 12:18, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 You cannot expect people to stop bringing this topic up until they get — in
 their feeling — satisfactory answers, and it is my impression that at least
 some people don't feel that way.


+1


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Bence Damokos
Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
is taking the situation a bit too far.
At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
punishment already.

It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and perhaps
explain their reasons), which they have done.
If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part of
the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
the option to punish the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this tit-for-tat
satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
lead to any good results.

I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation that
is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]

I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to accept
the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any satisfaction
in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's wiki, and move
on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional persons, one mistake
does not defy them and I am sure the existing relationships will be healed
through other channels of interaction and working together.

For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be helpful
if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level and
venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind of
training is provided to WMF employees.

Best regards,
Bence


[1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
questions (their pre-coded response) can be lowering the quality of some
of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
the QA format.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Bence Damokos
(typo fix)


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
 is taking the situation a bit too far.
 At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
 punishment already.

 It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
 can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and perhaps
 explain their reasons), which they have done.
 If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part of
 the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
 the option to punish the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
 same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this tit-for-tat
 satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
 relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
 lead to any good results.

 I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
 line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
 defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
 can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
 going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
 the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation that
 is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]

 I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to
 accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any
 satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's
 wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional
 persons, one mistake does not define them and I am sure the existing
 relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and
 working together.

 For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be helpful
 if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
 helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
 including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level and
 venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind of
 training is provided to WMF employees.

 Best regards,
 Bence


 [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
 questions (their pre-coded response) can be lowering the quality of some
 of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
 the QA format.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Deryck Chan
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:


  Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
  is taking the situation a bit too far.
  At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
  punishment already.
 
  It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
  can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and
 perhaps
  explain their reasons), which they have done.
  If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part
 of
  the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
  the option to punish the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
  same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this
 tit-for-tat
  satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
  relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
  lead to any good results.
 
  I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
  line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
  defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
  can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
  going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
  the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation
 that
  is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]
 
  I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to
  accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any
  satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's
  wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional
  persons, one mistake does not define them and I am sure the existing
  relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and
  working together.
 
  For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be
 helpful
  if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
  helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
  including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level
 and
  venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind
 of
  training is provided to WMF employees.
 
  Best regards,
  Bence
 
 
  [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
  questions (their pre-coded response) can be lowering the quality of
 some
  of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
  the QA format.


Yes. Because ten years ago the community set WMF's agenda. But nowadays WMF
staff sets the community's agenda and presents them as a done deal. Hurtful
examples from the last year or two are now springing into my mind like a
fountain.

Deryck


 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Svavar Kjarrval
Hi.

There's also the viewpoint that a person being fired could go overboard
and do irreparable harm to the site and the public's view of the WMF.
There's of course the possibility to revert the changes on the website,
since it is a wiki, but very hard to do on the public opinion, like if a
soon-to-be-fired admin changed a protected page to something which would
damage public relations of the WMF. That's why many companies don't want
fired employees to continue working for them after the employee
termination has been announced.

Of course a counter-argument would be that a majority of those admins
wouldn't do something like that and I don't doubt their good intentions.
But the WMF wouldn't be aware of which admin would go on an unwarranted
rampage, if any, and who wouldn't. The safest approach would be to take
away their admin privileges without a prior announcement. I do agree,
though, that some kind of public announcement should have been made
after the fact regarding this policy change and the former admins
thanked for their contributions.

With regards,
Svavar Kjarrval



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Brandon Harris

On May 28, 2013, at 12:38 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 However, I have concerns about keeping Gayle in the Chief Talent and Culture 
 Officer position.


This type of conversation is really not helpful in any way.  I don't 
know what you're expecting here.


---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Nathan
Pine says no one suggested firing Gayle or Philippe; I think it's
clear that whatever semantics are invoked, he did suggest just that.
That's beyond inappropriate, in my view, and an example of the toxic
environment that will lead to less fruitful communication from the WMF
and not more. It's not in Pine's remit as a volunteer to propose that
WMF employees be demoted, especially over something as picayune as
administrator rights on a wiki with minimal traffic and less
importance.

It's unfathomable that Pine thinks he should be writing to Gayle in
this way, as if he were her superior and she was obligated to justify
her continued employment to him personally. In multiple comments in
recent posts Pine has implied that he has real-world expertise in this
area... at this point, I find that implication unsupported by evidence
of communication skills or the ability to appropriately judge context
and audience reaction.

It's not traditional to so directly call out a commenter on this list
for posts that step over the line, particularly when they remain civil
despite being wildly inappropriate. But I think we need to understand
that the relationship between volunteers (especially those on the
mailing lists) and the WMF is a two way street. We can't expect them
to engage better with us if we permit, even by silence, this type of
haranguing to continue unchallenged.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread Huib Laurens
Hi,

I strongly believe that the Foundation shouldn't do actions like this on a
Friday. In this case there was a major discussion about it and nobody from
the foundation was there to respond.

But this week the new MediaWiki version is released on Friday, there is a
bug (wrong version details) the bug is minor but there is nobody to fix it
untill today. The team say's its just a small bug... But if somebody
install new software and it says release candidate they can lose trust.

Maybe we should make a policy that a mass-desysop, a new release or any
other statement shouldn't be on Friday so that there is somebody arround to
respond.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote:


 On May 28, 2013, at 12:38 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

  However, I have concerns about keeping Gayle in the Chief Talent and
 Culture Officer position.


 This type of conversation is really not helpful in any way.  I
 don't know what you're expecting here.


 ---
 Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib Laurens
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread phoebe ayers
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pine says no one suggested firing Gayle or Philippe; I think it's
 clear that whatever semantics are invoked, he did suggest just that.
 That's beyond inappropriate, in my view, and an example of the toxic
 environment that will lead to less fruitful communication from the WMF
 and not more. It's not in Pine's remit as a volunteer to propose that
 WMF employees be demoted, especially over something as picayune as
 administrator rights on a wiki with minimal traffic and less
 importance.

 It's unfathomable that Pine thinks he should be writing to Gayle in
 this way, as if he were her superior and she was obligated to justify
 her continued employment to him personally. In multiple comments in
 recent posts Pine has implied that he has real-world expertise in this
 area... at this point, I find that implication unsupported by evidence
 of communication skills or the ability to appropriately judge context
 and audience reaction.

 It's not traditional to so directly call out a commenter on this list
 for posts that step over the line, particularly when they remain civil
 despite being wildly inappropriate. But I think we need to understand
 that the relationship between volunteers (especially those on the
 mailing lists) and the WMF is a two way street. We can't expect them
 to engage better with us if we permit, even by silence, this type of
 haranguing to continue unchallenged.


I agree with this; thanks for saying it.

==about communication in general==
I think it's worth remembering we all judge each other on the tone and
content of messages that we send here (some sending pseudonymously, some
not). Sometimes I think many of us feel comfortable in saying things that
we might think privately or say casually to a friend, without thinking
about how: a) hundreds of people, including people who have spent years and
years devoted to this work (staff and volunteers alike) may read it and be
affected*; b) these messages are how our own reputations get shaped online,
both good and bad; c) we all just have one perspective on Wikimedia, shaped
by our own experience, which is not necessarily the same as everyone
else's.

-- phoebe


* I've had plenty of bad days because of the way Wikimedia-l threads made
me feel about our projects, and plenty of good ones too. I'm not alone in
this.

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-28 Thread ENWP Pine
I don't know what to do. I lost sleep thinking about this situation last night. 
I think I'm still in shock and I'm frustrated. The normal situation on wiki is 
to have this kind of discussion in public for actions that happen on any wiki 
that I know of. There were similarly public discussions about what happened in 
WMUK. Maybe that's wrong. I don't know. I worried that if I said nothing that 
it would be wrong, and I worry that saying something is wrong too. 

I'm withdrawing from this discussion for now. I wish I knew what the right 
thing to do was. I'm very sorry. 

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Steve Zhang
On 26 May 2013 07:35, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and
 your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your
 explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with
 this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your
 position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would
 implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did,
 and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of
 Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture
 and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This
 situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry
 to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been
 harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
 Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
 should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
 point of view.


I've thought long and hard about whether to reply here, and I have decided
that I will. Our mailing lists too often become an ugly place where the
worst of us comes out for all to see. I feel that regarding this matter,
some here have stepped over the line. Having your own opinion is fine, as
is providing criticism, but attacking others (or in general, saying things
that make them feel like crap) is not. As one who has worked to resolve the
disputes of others (both on-wiki and in real life) I think it needs to be
said that the current tension that has been created needs to dissipate.
Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
other changes) happened for a reason, and I'm not going to comment on
whether I think it was the right decision to make or not - I'm not
qualified to do that. I do think that it could have been carried out in a
better fashion, and that if the community was given more notice of the
changes, with an explanation of the reasons for making them, then the
response from the community would not have been as dramatic. But that said,
Gayle has offered her apologies. And I accept them. I think we all should.
We have all made mistakes within our time, and we should not be remembered
solely by our errors. We need to move on.

Remember, we are all working towards the same goal - a world in which every
single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. I would
invite all reading this mailing list thread to reflect on what has
happened, and the actions you have taken. Think about what you can take
away from this, and how you can use the experience to improve yourself. And
most importantly, remember that when you send someone an email, a text, a
tweet, a talk page message, that there is a real person on the receiving
end, and what you say impacts them. If you wouldn't like to be on the
receiving end of what you say, consider whether there's a better way to say
it, or say nothing at all. I think if we all did this in our day to day
lives, they would be much more happy and pleasant ones.

Regards,
*Steven Zhang*
*cro0...@gmail.com*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

I can agree with the rest but this is interesting:

Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 08:42:

[...]
Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
other changes) happened for a reason, [...]


really? What reason? I've not yet heard an explanation other than it's 
our wiki and we do whatever we wish: I'll prove you in a second!.
I also agree that judging the decision is useless (it's not going to be 
reverted) and that it's not our job (the WMF board should do that, I 
guess), but if you know the reason then please share it because we're 
all clueless about it.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Steve Zhang
On 26 May 2013 16:53, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I can agree with the rest but this is interesting:

 Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 08:42:

 [...]

 Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
 other changes) happened for a reason, [...]


 really? What reason? I've not yet heard an explanation other than it's
 our wiki and we do whatever we wish: I'll prove you in a second!.
 I also agree that judging the decision is useless (it's not going to be
 reverted) and that it's not our job (the WMF board should do that, I
 guess), but if you know the reason then please share it because we're all
 clueless about it.

 Nemo


Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
days ago, like everyone else this is all the information I have. Whether or
not we agree with her reasons is a moot point, as she has noted that her
decision will stand. I don't think this was ever done to make community
members unhappy, and while that turned out to be one of the results, I
think we should let it go. Like many things on Wikimedia, this is a
discussion that has run its natural should be laid to rest, and we should
move on to more productive things.

Steven Zhang
cro0...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 09:08:

Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
days ago, [...]


Ah. I didn't notice, can you please quote the relevant passage[s]? Maybe 
I missed some, it was a very long message and its purpose didn't seem to 
explain reasons for the action.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread cro0016
I believe the relevant passage of text is this one:

Wikimedia Foundation wiki has always been uniquely governed among the family 
of Wikimedia wikis, with decision-making
authority historically placed with the WMF itself due to its purpose
(hosting of official documents like bylaws, IRS tax returns, Board
resolutions, staff listings, official WMF communications of various kinds,
etc.). While the Board was described as the decision-making authority for
content disputes before the organization had paid staff, in day-to-day
practice, staff members are now helping to maintain and post many of those
documents.

Consistent with this, my goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: the organization,
with that function delegated to staff members in day-to-day practice, is
directly responsible for making and arbitrating decisions on the Wikimedia
Foundation’s website. This does not preclude volunteers from being granted
administrative-level access where a project requires it and where we have a
good working relationship that makes this possible. However, I wanted to
create clarity as early and possible, and therefore requested that
administrator accounts initially be limited to staff.

Steve Zhang
Sent from my iPad

On 26/05/2013, at 6:04 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 09:08:
 Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
 days ago, [...]
 
 Ah. I didn't notice, can you please quote the relevant passage[s]? Maybe I 
 missed some, it was a very long message and its purpose didn't seem to 
 explain reasons for the action.
 
 Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Deryck Chan, 26/05/2013 11:27:

In contrast to my post in the original thread (that I'm sceptical about how
long WMF wiki will survive without volunteer admins), I do think the WMF is
allowed their own piece of turf.

In general, when there's an owner of a WMF-hosted wiki, we generally
allow the owner group to have totalitarian control over who gets
adminship of the wiki. (eg. chapter wikis, Wikimania wikis - I'm grateful
that thehelpfulone respected the WM2013's local team's request to not grant
adminship to anyone without the team's explicit approval.)


Sure. Except that in those cases it's clear who's in charge, for 
instance the wikimania team. Who's in charge of the wiki here? How many 
other times does this need to be asked?


Nemo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-26 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Again, this is going to be a general e–mail, so I'm not going to quote 
anyone in particular, and will just refer to some parts of the e–mails 
sent before this one.


First of all, I think some of you guys should really stop freaking out 
about the alleged level of attacks in this thread (and the previous 
one). I haven't seen anyone say anything really outrageous here, and the 
mere expression of an opinion that someone should be fired is /not/ a 
personal attack. Requiring that people better be nice than honest will 
not help solve anything, in the same way that sending small novels 
without really answering any questions does not help anything.


The fact is that none of the questions asked have been answered yet, 
almost three weeks since the situation happened. The thread has not 
died—people are just waiting for some true answers, other than it's our 
wiki and it's always been uniquely governed.


I'm not sure whether this is related to Gayle's joining the WMF just 16 
months ago, but the uniqueness of the WMF wiki was never like she (and 
apparently Sue, if I recall correctly) described it.


The decision-making authority has never been placed with the 
WMF—rather, the wiki was an example of a pretty good symbiosis between 
the WMF staff, who have been posting official documents, press releases, 
keeping the staff list up-to-date, and maintaining their user pages, and 
between the volunteers, who have been doing all sorts of things—from 
fixing typos, importing translations, to creating new accounts and 
deleting redundant templates.


This worked quite well, with some minor to moderate glitches, until May 
(April?) this year, when someone thought it was such a good idea to just 
go ahead and remove adminship from all those volunteers. (Yes, I'm no 
longer AGF-ing here.)


You cannot expect people to stop bringing this topic up until they get — 
in their feeling — satisfactory answers, and it is my impression that at 
least some people don't feel that way.


-- Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-25 Thread ENWP Pine
 Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:33:57 +0200
 From: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Cc: Gayle Karen Young gyo...@wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
   other things)
 Message-ID: 519e6115@gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
 
 Just in case someone wonders,
 
 Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
  [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
  adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
  clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
 
 doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as the 
 governance model of the site doesn't exist at all and nobody has any 
 idea of who is going to take care of it.
 
 Or in other words:
 
 Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
   Gayle Karen Young wrote:
  
   Hello folks,
  
   [...]
  
   Gayle
  
   So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
   any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
 
 So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting 
 with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my 
 knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by 
 chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that 
 there's little room to do worse in this relationship.
 
 Nemo
 


Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread awhile 
back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can find them
would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd ask you
to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most important.

Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and 
your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your 
explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with 
this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your 
position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would 
implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did, 
and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of 
Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture 
and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This 
situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry 
to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been 
harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's 
Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you 
should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your 
point of view.

Thanks,

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-25 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter


Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread 
awhile
back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can 
find them
would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd 
ask you
to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most 
important.


Hi Pine,

do you mean these:


1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community
members?
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Who precisely (what department) is responsible for the maintenance
of the wiki, and why didn't they perform their roles before?

4) For how long has the decision of removing adminship from those
community members been discussed behind the closed door of the WMF,
and who participated in that discussion?


5) what measures
are to be taken to exclude this in the future, and 6) how can we
continue assuming good faith and be nice to each other.

I do not recollect any other lists of questions.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-25 Thread Craig Franklin
Wow, I'm on the road, bur suggesting that someone ought to leave after one
public error? That's brutal. Hope I never come across you while doing my
day job!

Cheers,
Craig
On 26/05/2013 5:35 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:33:57 +0200
  From: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
  To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Cc: Gayle Karen Young gyo...@wikimedia.org
  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
other things)
  Message-ID: 519e6115@gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
 
  Just in case someone wonders,
 
  Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
   [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
   adminstrator, which is often identified with community
 self-governance, is
   clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
 
  doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as the
  governance model of the site doesn't exist at all and nobody has any
  idea of who is going to take care of it.
 
  Or in other words:
 
  Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
Gayle Karen Young wrote:
   
Hello folks,
   
[...]
   
Gayle
   
So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers
 to
any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
 
  So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting
  with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my
  knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by
  chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that
  there's little room to do worse in this relationship.
 
  Nemo
 


 Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread awhile
 back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can
 find them
 would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd ask
 you
 to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most important.

 Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and
 your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your
 explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with
 this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your
 position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would
 implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did,
 and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of
 Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture
 and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This
 situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry
 to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been
 harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
 Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
 should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
 point of view.

 Thanks,

 Pine

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-25 Thread Benjamin Lees
 The way this whole affair was undertaken was unfortunate, but that can be
smoothed over with apologies.  The remaining issue is that the wrong
decision was made, and there's no way to fix that except to reverse the
decision.

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
 Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
 should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
 point of view.


I think this is a little over the top.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-25 Thread MZMcBride
Benjamin Lees wrote:
 The way this whole affair was undertaken was unfortunate, but that can be
smoothed over with apologies.  The remaining issue is that the wrong
decision was made, and there's no way to fix that except to reverse the
decision.

This. It's not about making a mistake (or even a series of mistakes):
that's to be expected by any person doing anything. Making (and learning
from) mistakes is part of being human. The relationship here has certainly
been damaged, but to move forward, I don't think acknowledging that
mistakes were made is sufficient. It's about making things right.

It's particularly frustrating that wikis make mistakes very easy to undo
and yet somehow that process has completely failed us here. We encourage
boldness, as the next steps (a reversion and discussion) are supposed to
be easy. I suppose this principle doesn't apply to a wiki coup.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-24 Thread Richard Symonds
Thanks, Gayle, for sharing this. It's interesting to read how people at
other organisations in the movement came to join us. I agree with Nathan: your
heart is clearly in the right place, and I promise you that the
working relationships
do become more comfortable (and reactions more understandable) in time.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 24 May 2013 16:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Gayle,

 I just wanted to say thanks for sharing. It does help personalize the
 WMF to know a little more about its leadership group, and I think
 having a sense of the personality behind the user account will temper
 some of the more unmoderated members of the Wikimedia commentariat.
 While I might quibble with some of your wording around the recent
 controversy, I think your heart is in the right place and the working
 relationships will become more comfortable as everyone gets to know
 you better and as you become more accustomed to the wiki culture.
 Thanks again and good luck!

 ~Nathan

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Just in case someone wonders,

Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:

[...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]


doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as the 
governance model of the site doesn't exist at all and nobody has any 
idea of who is going to take care of it.


Or in other words:

Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
 Gayle Karen Young wrote:

 Hello folks,

 [...]

 Gayle

 So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
 any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.

So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting 
with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my 
knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by 
chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that 
there's little room to do worse in this relationship.


Nemo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

2013-05-22 Thread Gayle Karen Young
*

Hi folks!

I felt like Sue did a nice job earlier of responding in an earlier thread
of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-May/125807.html,
 but here’s my response as well. Wikimedia Foundation wiki has always been
uniquely governed among the family of Wikimedia wikis, with decision-making
authority historically placed with the WMF itself due to its purpose
(hosting of official documents like bylaws, IRS tax returns, Board
resolutions, staff listings, official WMF communications of various kinds,
etc.). While the Board was described as the decision-making authority for
content disputes before the organization had paid staff, in day-to-day
practice, staff members are now helping to maintain and post many of those
documents.

Consistent with this, my goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: the organization,
with that function delegated to staff members in day-to-day practice, is
directly responsible for making and arbitrating decisions on the Wikimedia
Foundation’s website. This does not preclude volunteers from being granted
administrative-level access where a project requires it and where we have a
good working relationship that makes this possible. However, I wanted to
create clarity as early and possible, and therefore requested that
administrator accounts initially be limited to staff.  I think it's a
reasonable criteria that in addition to having a project reason, being able
to work with Foundation staff in a collaborative manner should be a part of
that - and it does take two to tango (i.e. the Foundation should be as
responsible for being collaborative).

Clearly I did this in a manner which was needlessly abrupt and didn’t
acknowledge the key role that many volunteers have played in the WMF wiki
over the years - so I’ll say that this has been a hell of a learning
experience, and one I’ve actually appreciated, as rough as it’s felt. For
this, I have apologized both on the list and to the individuals affected.
The overall change does reflect, in the Wikimedia Foundation’s view, a
necessary clarification in how the contents of the Wikimedia Foundation
site (wikimediafoundation.org) are governed and how decisions are made or
abitrated. I know this will disappoint some of you, but I also want to say
that I’m not planning to reverse this decision.

I’m also wondering what’s necessary to create better interactions and more
visibility with one another, which is one of the foundations of trust. I’m
not so active on this mailing list, so you don’t know me and I don’t know a
lot of you.  My personal experience is that it helps to have a sense of who
people are to really be able to assume good intent, so I’d like to also
start a different conversation if y’all are game in the next few weeks.
(Someone wrote me recently in light of this that I must be either stupid or
malicious, which I thought was sort of funny, but it highlighted for me
that without more visibility into me and what I do, you really could think
either of me - or both.)

John Gottman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman, in his research
on healthy relationships, talks about the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse of
relationships - elements that contribute negatively to every relationship.
They are criticism, stonewalling, disdain, and contempt.  These are
elements that I aspire to eliminate in my correspondence with all of you,
and that when I experience them aimed at me,  erode my ability to be
collaborative with y’all and I’d like to work on that. I realize I
committed the first error in the last round, so I have some ground to cover.

Negative interactions (mine included) “weigh” more than positive
interactions. People remember them more, and are affected by them more
deeply. Gottman, in marriage relationships, says you need a 5:1 ratio of
positive to negative interactions for healthy relationships. I think that's
true in many kinds of relationships for them to be healthy, thriving
interactions.

He also mentions that having a sense of what matters to other parties in a
conflict matters, so I wonder, do we have a sense of who each other is and
what we care for?


In the hope that it helps you to get to know me a little, I’d like to share
a few things about who I am and also extend the invitation that I’d love to
know these about any of you who care to respond.

Most of my early world was on-line as a really awkward geek kid.  I spent
time on BBSes over modems growing up, so most of the way I knew my friends
was through text, later playing an admin role on a few MUSHes. I have a lot
of interest areas - I sing, I played LARPs, I love Star Trek and Broadway
musicals, write fanfiction, am an avid reader, and love travel. In my spare
time, I run an organization called Spark http://www.sparksf.orgthat works
on global women’s human rights issues.  My core commitment is to technology
as a