The core problem (as several times before) seems to me that all these broad
discussions are held AFTER things went wrong or a specific meta decision
got out of hand.
Obviously the current transparency of or even the current decision-making
process in its entirety isn't appropiate (anymore) for a movement of such
global variety and plurality.
The BoT is basically paralysed and most probably overstrained, because e.g.
for the sake of the rules of the current construct the relevant power play
decisions must stay non public, not to speak of possible hidden interests
which can conveniently sneak in. And as the icing of the cake a person
asking the wrong questions can easily be removed as a board member.
As much as I care basically more about the subject-oriented debates and the
discourse about the balanced appreciations of values I more and more
convinced that a critical review of the core decision-making processes
become necessary. Not as an end to itself, but to openly rethink the ways
how power and responsibilty in a global, pluralistic movement should be
organized. A movement with the kernel project of an encyclopedia still
being the biggest role model for the idea of an open and free knowledge
based internet (which not necessarily was to follow all the tech and social
media trends relevant to a more commercially oriented platform-monoculture
It's true, we have to change. But maybe the whys and the hows of change
should be discussed and decided more broadly, more democratically
represented as in the current structure. And especially BEFORE the paths
are already written in stone and the horses have bolted.
2016-02-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>:
> I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the
> outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED
> on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies
> shortcomings on the part of one or more of her staff or former staff - and
> if WMF had problems when she arrived at least some of them were staff
> problems - it is used as proof she's "literally Hitler".
> None of us on the outside knows who's Hitler here. And I guess we never
> will. Sorry, but the volunteers who actually write and run Wikipedia can't
> just believe either of you.
> Does anyone know when the board is meeting (has it met) to resolve this? I
> don't want them to rush a poorly thought-through decision but, after a
> while, inaction in a human crisis like this becomes negligent abuse.
> On 22 Feb 2016 10:53 pm, "Giuseppe Lavagetto" <glavage...@wikimedia.org>
> > Dear Lila,
> > I woke up this morning and as usual I went for my WMF email with my
> > I woke up to read my ED implying that the employee discontent was due
> > to, amongst other things:
> > > We’ve asked for adjustment in attitude towards work, our
> > responsibilities and professional relationships.
> > > We prioritised impact and performance so that we can provide more value
> > to our communities and the world.
> > Now, one easy way to read this, the most obvious one, is that the
> > attitude towards work of the WMF employees was somewhat not right or
> > unprofessional, and that we were lazy and not goal-driven.
> > I would find this inappropriate in an internal email, but you went to
> > state that in public, and I have to admit I find this is deeply
> > offending on a personal and professional level.
> > I restrained from expressing publicly any issues I might have
> > with your own performance; I would love you to not
> > spread covert allegations on my performace and professional attitude
> > (not specifically, but well, I'm part of the staff here right?).
> > For the first time in the two years since I joined the WMF I felt a
> > sour taste in my mouth for just sitting down to work.
> > Deeply sad,
> > Giuseppe
> > 
> > "WMF Staff morale"
> > --
> > Giuseppe Lavagetto
> > Senior Technical Operations Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org