Yes, it is emotions that speak, though emotions are often concealed beneath "arguments." Basic human psychology.
Any attempt to ascribe this affair to "sour grapes" from a disgruntled software developer is looking at a bush in the forest and not the massive collection of trees. No, it's about basic survival issues, it's called "avoiding domination," a nearly universal trait that appears to be instinctive. There are *also* "rational" issues, but it was not reason that led the WMF to, in a rush, create and impose superprotect, and it was not reason that led to all the extreme comments from the community. We don't expect the community to be reasonable, as to every comment, but we do have higher expectations of people employed to serve us. It is likely, to me, that the root problem here was a new ED, who believed that her mission was to create a better experience for *readers*, and, my guess, she was encouraged to believe that by some of the Staff. And, of course, as a skilled manager from software companies, she would support and rely on the Staff for advice. However, there is a higher master, always, the customers. Those who actually pay the bills. Who are they? Well, we could talk about the donors, but there is a much larger contributor to the WMF, and it contributes labor, not money. That labor makes the projects possible. Some thought that the superprotect decision was a deliberate attempt to shove the community away, to move toward bot maintenance, to kick the experienced users out the door. I don't think so. I think it was simply inept, though an inept decision that might be expected from an *experienced software company manager.* Who was not informed that the community is the actual customer, not the readers. Who, I assume, can learn. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now. >________________________________ > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> >To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:31 AM >Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes >about deployments > > >Hoi, >The argument is not at all about the MediaViewer. It is only the latest >flash point. Consequently the notion of how hard it is to set a default on >or off is not relevant really. > >When you read the Wikipedia Signpost you read about one of the major German >players and it is found necessary to mention that his "tools" environment >was ended and it became WMF labs. For me it gives the impression of sour >grapes and a sense of failure because volunteers do not decide the agenda >and feel angry/frustrated about that. > >Consequently my conclusion that it is not about the MediaViewer at all. The >next thing that comes along will be the next flash point. This is because >it is emotions that speak and not arguments. >Thanks, > GerardM > > >On 1 September 2014 08:11, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer, >> > Superprotect >> > and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for >> the >> > projects. >> > Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is >> > disheartening. >> > Personally, I would like to see us building on each other's work instead >> of >> > feuding, >> > and I'm getting MediaViewer issue fatigue. >> > >> > WMF's principal argument against letting projects make local decisions >> > about >> > configurations of MediaViewer seems to be that having a multitude of site >> > configurations is impractical for site maintainability and development of >> > new >> > features. The Technical Committee would be in a good position to make >> global >> > decisions on a consensus basis. >> > >> > Pine >> >> I've heard the argument that it is difficult to maintain and develop for >> having different default states of this setting across different projects, >> and frankly, I'm not buying it, unless the setting is intended to be >> removed completely. >> >> Could someone explain to me how having a different default state for the >> setting has much, or any, impact? >> >> - Martijn >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >_______________________________________________ >Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, ><mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
