MZMcBride <z <at>> writes:

> Ryan Lane wrote:
> >Kim Bruning <kim <at> ...> writes (roughly):
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Washington post article:
> >> 
> >
> >The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
> >amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
> >the foundation has done). [...]
> I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
> possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
> It has a MediaWiki extension
> <> and custom back-end
> (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
> the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
> infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
> To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
> I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
> addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
> overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
> unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.

It was a project created and lead by the business development folks and was
given some engineering resources to make it happen. It's been incredibly
successful and has a real and important impact. Even taking engineering
projects into consideration, this is one of Wikimedia's most impacting
projects from the point of view of the mission.

> >My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
> >foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
> >(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
> >department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
> This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong.   Gayle's title is "Chief
> Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone
> else who reports to her; cf.
> <>. I agree
> that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
> speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
> Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
> Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
> another thread.)

Sorry, I used director instead of chief. That doesn't change the fact that
her role is to lead HR. If you look at the staff page, you'll see this is in
the case and from a practical point of view, she does HR stuff.

Having any C level respond to the press is a bad approach, especially with a
subject this touchy. This is the entire reason for having a
communications/brand department.

- Ryan

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to