Sue (or anyone from staff who is more precisely in charge for this), may you just revert this and open discussion to reach more sensible solution?
I understand that there could be a good reason for this action, but the way it's been handled is not the perfect one. And at least permissions on a wiki are not hard to revert. On May 11, 2013 6:48 PM, "Sue Gardner" <sgard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Gayle is travelling today and not online, so I'll take a crack at > responding to this. > > The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation > knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative (as are all > readers) for the work that volunteers do in the projects. The Wikimedia > Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia Foundation wiki (and the blog). > We are grateful to get community help there, and a small number of > community members do really good work with us on both the WMF wiki and the > blog. But ultimately that wiki, and the blog, are our responsibility, and > we are accountable for making sure that e.g. the staff page, the Board > bios, the resolution texts, etc., are maintained and in good shape. Most > material on the WMF is not created via collaborative production processes > -- it's "corporate" in nature, meaning that it is developed by the > Wikimedia Foundation, for an audience of Wikimedia Foundation stakeholders, > which includes community members and prospective community members, donors, > readers of the projects, media, and others. > > My understanding is that administrator rights have been removed from a > small number of volunteers, but that those people still have basic editing > rights. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who work on > the Foundation wiki have been grateful (and are grateful) for the help > they've gotten from community members in maintaining the Foundation wiki, > and that we hope they'll continue to help us. They've been great, and we're > grateful. > > But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have overridden > decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think > that's ever been a huge problem: I don't think we've ever had a situation > in which extensive discussion hasn't reached an okay conclusion. But, the > extensive discussions --which, I understand, have typically been > one-on-one, by which I mean, not a large number of community members or a > community consensus against something the Foundation has wanted to do, but > rather one volunteer disagreeing with something staff have been asked to do > as part of their job --- occasionally, those discussions have been > extremely time-consuming. That's not good. The staff working on the > Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of > the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a > single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the > Foundation wiki, or if they need to modify their plans extensively to > accommodate the opinions of a single community member, that reduces the > amount of time available for them to do the rest of their work. Which, I > repeat, is in the service of the movement overall. > > So I would say this: > > This decision is not about "the community" versus "the WMF." This decision > is about the WMF staff, and making it possible for them to do their work on > the WMF wiki with some reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness. > This decision clarifies roles-and-responsibilities. On the projects, the > volunteers are the editorial leads, and the WMF plays a supporting role by > creating functionality, maintaining the servers, paying the bandwidth > bills, and so forth. On the WMF wiki, the WMF is the editorial lead, and > volunteers can (and do) play a supporting role helping staff organize > pages, maintain pages, and so forth. That's a reasonable division, and I > think having clarity around it is a good thing. > > Slightly more broadly: when the Wikimedia movement was very young, > everybody did everything and there wasn't much division of > roles-and-responsibilities. I remember when the Wikimedia Foundation > budgets were prepared by volunteers, when the trademarks were managed by > volunteers, and so forth. That was appropriate for the time, and even > though it was messy, it was kind of great. Then we all went through a > period in which roles-and-responsibilities were utterly unclear -- it > wasn't at all obvious who should do what, and many > roles-and-responsibilities were hotly disputed. Personally, I feel like > we're moving into a period now in which things are getting clearer. We > don't pay staff to edit the projects: staff who edit do it on their own > time, as a hobby or special personal interest. We do pay staff to do things > that are better done by staff than by volunteers, such as managing the > trademark portfolio. Some volunteers (such as Domas) have very special > privileges and powers, because they've proved over time they are > exceptionally skilled. Some volunteers support the Wikimedia Foundation > staff in their work in a variety of ways, because they've proved their > interest and abilities. Some work happens in close partnership between > staff and volunteers, such as production of blog posts, speaking with the > media, and in projects such as the Global Ed one. Sometimes organized > groups of volunteers are created by volunteers and supported by staff (e.g. > ArbCom or AffCom) and sometimes organized groups of volunteers are created > by the Wikimedia Foundation and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation (such > as the FDC). Upshot: community members and Wikimedia Foundation staff work > together in many different coordinated fashions. The ways on which we work > together are becoming increasingly clear, and I think that clarity is good. > > So. People can disagree with this decision, and that's okay. But > ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia > Foundation wiki: it's our job to figure out how best to manage and maintain > it. That's what we're doing here. > > Thanks, > Sue > On May 11, 2013 4:15 AM, "K. Peachey" <p858sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is the email that got sent out to everyone, > > > > --- > > Dear XXX, > > Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we > > are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access > > is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to > > accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective > > immediately. > > Sincerely, > > Gayle > > -- > > Gayle Karen K. Young > > Chief Talent and Culture Officer > > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415.310.8416 > > www.wikimediafoundation.org > > --- > > > > Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in > > ~5 months) seems lacking in general and the subsequent responses > > about knowing what these people do on the wiki > > > > Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you > > would expect it to be done in alphabetically order. > > > > "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's > > ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web > > presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are > > given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and > > when they're needed for a specific task." > > > > Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not > > as much thee days but it still happens. > > > > Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the > > position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly > > changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange. > > since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls > > under the foundation) > > > > . < > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F > > > > > . < > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung > > > > > . <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l