On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
> this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
> minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
I think it's quite clear what's going on. Signpost  and Liam's post
 have good descriptions (with some of the positions) of what
happened. Plus, James was on the side of the discontent part of staff
(which seems to be the majority) and didn't articulate his position
And as I suppose this is the ongoing general-type thread, I'd say few
words in relation to that.
Our technology is based on the concept from 1990s, implemented in 2001
and slightly changed up to the moment. The only major technology which
catches 2005 (Visual Editor) is in alpha or beta stage, depending on
how harsh QA process would be implemented.
Something should be done with that. While I would be much more happy
with a social and gaming platform, I think anything towards technology
innovation is good, as during the last 15 years our technology
innovation was around zero. The most important Sue's impact on
Wikimedia is financial stability. I expect that the most important
Lila's impact on Wikimedia will be moving it from technologically
passive organization to an active one.
Restructuring one organization is hard process. I mean, if I found
myself feeling offended because of moving coffee machine away from the
door of my office and putting it on more appropriate place, I
completely understand that any larger change could produce significant
On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in
understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of
the extraordinary complex environment of Wikimedia movement.
The only solution for such situations is constructive communication.
And constructive communication. And more constructive communication.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com