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 abo
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Nathan 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 fr
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
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 i
On May 28, 2013, at 12:38 AM, ENWP Pine 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 Designe
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
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos 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
(typo fix)
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos 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 t
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
On 26 May 2013 12:18, Tomasz W. Kozlowski 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.
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 g
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
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
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 totalitari
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 retur
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 acti
On 26 May 2013 16:53, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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 r
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
On 26 May 2013 07:35, ENWP Pine 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
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
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 wrote:
> Do you think you s
: "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Cc: Gayle Karen Young
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
> > other things)
> > Message-ID: <519e6115@gmail.com>
> > Content
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
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:33:57 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)"
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Cc: Gayle Karen Young
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
> other things)
> Message-ID: <519e6115@gmail.com>
&g
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)
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
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
*
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 de
28 matches
Mail list logo
