Dear Brion, your comments in this thread were wonderfully clear. Thank you. On Feb 26, 2016 8:15 PM, "Brion Vibber" <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Just a quick note: > > * some of the big staff conversations are indeed being very carefully > note-taken or recorded internally. We are being very careful to plan and > communicate how open they will be ahead of time and keep them both honest > and not scary. I would not expect them to be made public (the ones made so > far will definitely not because we already told people they were private to > staff, and people have to be able to trust us on this stuff.) > > * There is also a big need for private conversations, which means many/most > of these talks won't be recorded and definitely would not be made public in > detail. Many won't feel comfortable in a recorded conversation. Many still > won't feel comfortable in a large group that's not recorded. Many still > won't feel comfortable in a small group conversation. And others still > won't feel comfortable opening up in a 1:1 private conversation with > someone in a power position at their employer. > > * it's also important to remember that people are individuals and have > different experiences. Not everyone interprets or experiences the same > events or in the same way. Some staff members are not comfortable > expressing their experiences and feelings because they feel different from > those speaking more loudly, or found the recent internal and public > discussions more directly traumatic to themselves than what they > experienced during the previous administration -- in which case a more > private environment helps avoid the concern about feeling out of lock step > or being treated as an ignorant outsider for not having shared the same > issue. > > I think it's very important to have all of those levels of conversations, > and distill and spread around the core issues, fears, hopes in a way that's > safe, fair, and useful. And honestly I'd prioritize safe and fair over > useful in some respects. > > Totally agree that facilitated conversations can be useful. There's at > least some informal stuff going on but I hope we have some more > purpose-designed facilitated discussions too. > > And I think some of us *would* love to have public talks about making > things better -- such as those of us posting here. But that's going to be > very distinct from what I think we're looking at this week. > > -- brion > On Feb 26, 2016 4:13 PM, "Pete Forsyth" <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a > record > > of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making > them > > all public is not desirable. > > > > Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a > skilled > > professional facilitator or mediator, who has no stake in the outcome, > can > > be an incredibly helpful in getting the maximum benefit from difficult > > discussions. I hope that the WMF has considered hiring such a person for > > Jimmy's visit, and to address any number of other aspects of the present > > challenges. > > > > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy > > can > > > be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting, > > > video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a > > > step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that > the > > > transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF > to > > > exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the > > videos > > > could be widely accessible inside of WMF. I think that the videos > would > > be > > > instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and > > other > > > Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons > learned > > > and opportunities for organizational development. > > > > > > Pine > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@ymail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for > people > > > > > new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of > > > voices > > > > > and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which > ones > > > > > are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, > > with > > > > > little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain > > no > > > > > matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication. > If > > > you > > > > > don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it > matters, > > > > > you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... > > > > > ambiguous even in the best of times. > > > > > > > > > > So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit > to > > > San > > > > > Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by > > more > > > > > visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get > a > > > > > better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people > > have, > > > > > so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim > > ED, > > > > > and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jimmy, > > > > > > > > A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know; > > > > stopped clocks and all that). > > > > > > > > A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last > > > > few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not > > > > watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time > > > > wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5 > > > > basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the > > > > sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of > the > > > > problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal > to > > > > give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed, > > > > some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due > > > > to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing > > > > transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or > > > > "chronic complainers" were eminently justified. > > > > > > > > When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain > > > > no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending > > > > time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be > > > > talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only > the > > > > concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that > > > > worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels > > > > like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful > > > > situation. > > > > > > > > I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to > > > > communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming > that > > > > it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to > use, > > > > within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. > I > > > > of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation > > > > with your words has profound implications for how people approach you > > > > and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional > > > > ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some > > > > people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate > > > > very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the > > > > Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which > > > > were totally legitimate - dismissed. > > > > > > > > (As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about > > > > group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record > > > > we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this > > > > critical time, increases transparency.) > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=15301332 > > > > [1] No, I was not one of them) > > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
