Argh, why do we have to keep going through this over and over again? I'm sure we're long past the point where Sue and many members of the staff are convinced that they will be attacked by someone in reaction to any decision they could make. Maybe that's true, but its no excuse for transforming such a picayune change into a drama bomb through the utter failure to manage the implementation of a change that affects dedicated volunteers. An advanced notice, an explanation, a thank you, an expression of hope that volunteers will continue to help. That's all it would have taken to preserve this as what it ought to have been, a non-issue. Instead, they received a terse and impersonal notice after the fact that amounted to the corporate version of ordering someone off your lawn.
Now we have an explanation, but it's a bit late - and it comes in place of what the first WMF response ought to have been, an apology for once again bungling an interaction with volunteers. Not all that long ago the WMF seemed to consider ahead of time the potential reaction of volunteers, and to tailor actions and communication to limit the chance of anger, disappointment and hurt feelings among them. Perhaps it was a natural, and unspoken, priority at a time when many WMF leaders were volunteers and former volunteers. Maybe we're past that point, and the WMF needs to begin actively pushing this ethos into the organizational culture of both staff and volunteer leadership groups. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l