ere:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Strategy/Reach#WereSpielChequers
TTFN
Jonathan / WereSpielChequers
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:31 +0300
> From: Yuri Astrakhan
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?
> Message-ID:
> Oliv
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
> Putting the Business case documents on the private staff wiki was the
> first step
> in my effort to rescue the process from the walled Google Docs abyss,
> where the
> documents got lost after senior staff (who initiated the process) l
Hello,
Le jeudi 25 février 2016, 02:06:38 Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
> Guillaume, the idea may come from anywhere, shouldn't we post the process
> on meta? Or is this WMF specific, e.g. "I want my favorite cereal in the
> cafeteria" proposal? :)
This is what I wrote in the introduction of the Busin
Guillaume, the idea may come from anywhere, shouldn't we post the process
on meta? Or is this WMF specific, e.g. "I want my favorite cereal in the
cafeteria" proposal? :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailin
Oliver, that's a fair point, but my idea can be expanded to non-products.
The only difference here is that everyone becomes group #2 - having to
convince others via social means. If the idea is not very visual, it has
to be painted with words, so maybe our amazing community liaisons or other
write
Le mercredi 24 février 2016 14:52:45, j'ai écrit :
> Hey Yuri,
>
> [Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki]
Obviously, I failed to change the To: line. My apologies to everyone who can't
access those documents.
--
Guillaume Paumier
__
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
wrote:
> Oliver, thanks!
>
>> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
> and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
>
> If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
>
Hey Yuri,
[Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki]
Le jeudi 25 février 2016, 01:38:31 Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
>
> In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> real challenge
Oliver, thanks!
> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others
Now, I agree with Oliver's points but I disagree they apply to the entire
organization, and I have proof. I also objectively think there's much more
reason for optimism than pessimism. I'm open to being proven wrong or told
that I have an Authority Voice and I just don't understand, I really am,
+1 to Jake.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Jake Orlowitz wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
>
> "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have a
Thanks for this email, Oliver, it's fantastic! Since I'm one of the
people who says 'flat' and 'flatter' a lot, I feel compelled to respond,
though I run the risk of painting an already-perfect lily.
One of the first essays we read in the Flat Org group was 'The Tyranny
of Structurelessness'[
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
. What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to
> organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what
> empathy we have and how we value empathy.
>
> I have consistently found the Foundation to lag in all of thes
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
>
> "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
> much of an
Oliver wrote:
"The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
impact
I just want to call out Oliver's post here as extremely valuable, and this
bears repeating:
A "flat" org structure is not a panacea when you don't have a level playing
field, and the playing field's never as level as we like to think it is.
Google up some discussions on the subject of 'meritocrac
I would like to clarify a fairly major premise of this conversation:
namely, the comment I made that Yuri quoted in the very first message.
When I say that the hierarchical organisation of the Foundation is
something that is preventing us from doing better, I was not thinking
of how we develop sof
>
> If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
> started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
> attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.
That is not accurate. I think Content Translation is a good example of
bottom-up
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
wrote:
>
> And that got me thinking. WMF, an organization that was built with the open
> and community-driven principles - why have we became the classic example of
> a corporate multi-level hierarchy? Should we mimic a living organism rather
> than
On Feb 23, 2016 7:01 PM, "Dario Taraborelli"
wrote:
>
> Brion,
>
> there was a very constructive, heartfelt session on models of bottom-up
> open innovation at this year's WMF All Hands. You can find extensive notes
> from this session on the Office Wiki ("Embracing skunkworks") which I
> encourag
That's funny, there's also an active reading group looking into flatter
organizational structures. I think we're maybe ready for a more official
lack of hierarchy, or at least a more solid acknowledgement that it's
flexibility that makes us strong and it should be cherished.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016
Brion,
there was a very constructive, heartfelt session on models of bottom-up
open innovation at this year's WMF All Hands. You can find extensive notes
from this session on the Office Wiki ("Embracing skunkworks") which I
encourage you to read and that I'd love to share publicly in a more
readab
Does it make sense to have an "Incubator team" ("Bell Labs" if you will),
whose core competency is to nurture small projects? When projects are
mature and need to switch into maintenance mode, they move under the
umbrella of a different team.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Feb 23, 2016 5:52 PM, "Dan Andreescu" wrote:
>
> but also, some projects that were not so useful, sure. But we learn, move
> on, we're not the first group of people to make mistakes : )
Yep... High-tech organizations call it "failing fast".
-- Brion
> ___
>
> If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
> started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
> attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.
and Event Logging, and the Graph extension, and Mediawiki Vagrant , and ...
and
Well, I see nothing in the rule-book [1] that says we have to be rigid.
Sure a lot of our work aligns with Reading, Editing, Discovery, and
Infrastructure. But some of our work needs bits and pieces from each
vertical, and even if managers and "hierarchists" [2] moan and groan, it
doesn't make the
I've advocated for flexible/ad-hoc/cross-functional teams before, and I
would advocate for that again.
Many of our successful projects -- both software and social -- start as
initiatives from individual staff members, often in concert with volunteers
providing research, testing, feedback, usage, a
If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.
It's hard to know what the mechanism would be for how to gauge community
support at meani
Something in Oliver's departure email caught my eye:
* "Because we are scared and in pain and hindered by structural biases and
hierarchy, we are worse at our jobs." (quoted with Oliver's permission)*
And that got me thinking. WMF, an organization that was built with the open
and community-driv
29 matches
Mail list logo
