On Monday, 22 February 2016, Faidon Liambotis <fai...@wikimedia.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fai...@wikimedia.org');>> wrote:
> What you did instead was to sent a community-wide email making it sound
> like this was a carefully executed plan and the only reason people are
> revolting is because they're either change-averse or bitter for not
> getting a promotion. This is downright insulting.

It also slides over the fact that the people who have been leaving recently
are people who had been hired or promoted during Lila's tenure. This is
quite different from people leaving within the first months of a new
director's arrival.

The tricky thing is that the staff have been trying their best - because
they are professionals - to keep internal "office problems" hidden from
public view. They have not been advertising their frustrations on-wiki but
trying to express their concerns through private and official procedures.
This means that now we are at a stage where staff are OPENLY criticising
the leadership that can appear to the wider wikiverse like the first sign
of a problem and that they are being petty. But it is actually the end of a
long road, not the beginning.

Suffice to say - in an organisation where the staff are well know for their
commitment to the values of the movement, to be complaining publicly (and
not just one or two new people, all the senior people too - see the report
of the staff survey in The Signpost) means that this is not an
insignificant problem or concern only held by some troublemakers.

> Finally, with all of your references to "community", it also sounds to
> me like like you're trying to gain some support from our community and
> effectively stategically place the (almost unanimously) revolting staff
> at odds with our community, in the hopes that you can get supporters and
> salvage your position. This would be a pretty desperate and selfish
> move. I hope I'm wrong.

I too get the sense that this email as trying to claim a sense of
martyrdom. Of pointing to the staff and and saying that "they" are
unwilling to embrace change - particularly with regards to being a "high
tech organisation". This might be a more believable argument if it was not
for the tech department have been the most vocal in criticism. I don't
think anyone was implacably opposed to improvements in the way tech should
be managed - the smoothness of new rollouts and speed of development of new
products was famously poor. But that's quite different from the
silicon-valley mindset of paranoia about marketshare and product-secrecy.

As several people have said to me in the last week (referencing
an American-political aphorism) "it's not the crime, it's the coverup".

Peace, love & metadata
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