> Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@...> writes:
> I know of people who are overwhelmed with negativity on the list. I myself
> feel it, too, although I am determined not to reduce my participation or
> liaising with the communities.

The negativity is not going to magically go away, especially not when we start 
seeing more people leave as we're being warned about right here. There is a 
reason that resignations are a popular response to scandal: without them, the 
negativity can continue for a long, long time.

Also, this is not a good time for smiley faces. I can't imagine that it feels 
empathetic to staff members who are feeling let down right now.

> Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@...> writes:
> I think that what is useful in such times is being precise: for instance,
> there was a voiced demand (which I support and consider reasonable) to have
> the Knowledge Engine explained. I really like the fact that there is an FAQ
> prepared and that there are answers posted. This is a constructive method
> of addressing a particular problem (I'm referring to the approach, not to
> the content, obviously, since it is a new page). I think we need precision
> in defining problems, and also precision in proposing constructive
> solutions, that's all.

OK, in terms of problems, staff are saying that it's Lila. Do you want them to 
be more specific in a public mailing list about how and where she has 
disappointed them? That seems like an awkward situation for Lila. I think the 
community has made it clear that we are disappointed about the transparency with
regard to the Knight Foundation, continuing up to a disappointing blog post. 
Note that the WMF declined to disclose the grant until Andreas Kolbe emailed 
the grant officer John Brackens who said that revealing grant documents is 
entirely up to the grantee (ie, WMF). Donor privacy was never an issue. People 
are entitled to have a limit at which point they say "enough is enough". That 
limit may be different than yours, but it's clear that it has been reached 
for many people.

Now, in terms of constructive solutions: it takes 2 board members to call a 
special meeting, with a minimum 2 days notice. Have you tried? I suspect that 
Maria might second you. If you cannot find a second, please let us know.

At that special meeting, you can make a motion to address the issues. I know 
how I would word the motion, and I don't think I need to spell it out for you. 
But maybe you have innovative ideas. The community should see the breakdown of 
the votes.

I noticed in a later post you pointed towards the Human Resources Committee as 
tackling the problem. This committee is composed of Jimbo, Patricio, and Guy 
Kawasaki. So: the guy who called James, the one who was trying to help staff, a 
"fucking liar" (if I recall correctly), the Chair of the board who removed the 
staff's friend, and who can be held most directly responsible for the board's 
lack of transparency and actions as the elected leader of the board, and Guy, 
who I understand is quite influential in the board room, but whose last 
communication to us was to express support for Arnnon without knowing how to 
sign his wiki username. That does not sound like a constructive way forward. I 
really wish I didn't have to point out these negative facts, as I have no 
interest in hurting anyone's feelings. I keep holding off from posting, hoping 
that better news will come.

When I first heard about the removal of James, the quote that ran through my 
mind, which I expressed to Sam Klein in a phone call, was from Warren Buffett: 
"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you t
hink about that, you'll do things differently".

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to