Hi Risker, Information asymmetry is a big issue. For example, in my role there is a lot I cannot say, I have responsibilities to protect people in the organization both current and former. So, for example, if someone is fired, even for cause, I would not say anything about this person that may hurt their chances in the future. We allow people to message their own exits.
When a situation arises that maybe completely unfair to the senior officer or a board member, as long as we are employed (and often if we are not) we will not disclose the details to protect the organization as a whole. As I am sure you practice all too often in your own professional life this is required in a professional role: to take the heat and the arrows when something goes wrong, and to give away credit for what goes right. I would not have it any other way, but it is something people all too often ignore or forget. I'd love to have a broader FAQ than the current one for Knowledge Engine to review and help provide transparency into any of the issues I can. Lila On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a difficult time for everyone. Staff, particularly staff who work > out of the San Francisco office, have seen and been through things that are > not well known or understood outside of that small group; even "highly > involved" volunteers aren't entirely in the loop. Former staff continue to > have a knowledge advantage over the vast majority of community members > simply because of their continued ties to friends and former colleagues who > remain on staff. > > I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect, even when > disagreeing with the interpretations that other people have made based on > the (often comparatively limited) information that they have available. I > can honestly say that I know some things that perhaps SarahSV and > Anthonyhcole don't know, but I certainly don't know everything - and I have > been in the SF offices twice in the last six months as a volunteer and > regularly converse with staff in certain areas in my role as a volunteer > working on various things. > > One of the major barriers is the legitimate concern that many staff have in > trying to communicate concerns in a manner that is not destructive, either > to the WMF as an organization, or to their own professional reputations. > The whistleblower provisions at the WMF are very narrow (essentially only > permitting reporting directly to the Board chair/chair of the Audit > Committee if there is reason to believe that a law has been broken, not > just internal policies no matter how severe), as one example. I've been > aware of concerns for about a year now, myself, but I've still found out > quite a bit more over the last few weeks. For staff, a lot of those early > concerns are practically ancient history, and that knowledge hasn't been > disseminated to a much broader community. Not to put too fine a point on > it, but the majority of the audience here doesn't know. > > Anthony, speaking for myself only, I don't think that your association with > Wikipediocracy is particularly relevant; other active members of that site > have expressed significantly different opinions, whether within or outside > of "WMF-related" locations like this mailing list or Meta or The Signpost. > I'd like to discourage anyone from assuming that there are monolithic and > unified positions on the current situation amongst any particular group. > That includes former and current staff, editors of particular projects, > commenters on external blogs or through other non-WMF media or criticism > sites, user groups, chapters, etc. There are a lot of different points of > view, and a lot of different levels of knowledge and information. > > I'm not going to say "let's assume good faith", don't worry. I'm going to > say "don't beat up on people who have different levels of information". > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 20 February 2016 at 20:31, Brandon Harris <bhar...@gaijin.com> wrote: > > > > > Danny, don't kid yourself! The folks at Wikipediocracy know > > everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about > > everything that will EVER happen. They've never been wrong, ever! > > > > I don't understand why we're still talking about this! > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > > > > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation > might > > > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it > > > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream. > > > > --- > > Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: 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 > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Lila Tretikov Wikimedia Foundation *“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
