With all due respect to Lila's work, but IIRC before she started working
for Foundation, it was said that the technology background was very
important, but communication could be a problem. That may have been
disregarded because the choice was already made or because volunteers
complain about everything anyway.

We saw improvements on technology at the expense of hiding things from
community or using [super]force on its implementation. A topic suggestion
is to discuss when volunteer community became a barrier on Foundation plans
and how to deal with that peacefully.

Sincerely wishing useful meetings to staff and sending good vibes from the
volunteer/spectator part of the whole thing.


Em sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2016, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
escreveu:

>  +1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
>
> The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
>
> Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the
> respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday
> *when
> we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and
> supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward
> thinking.
>
> Still, we've all been through something quite significant and we need a lot
> of care and feeding. This isn't to say that we can't have contentious
> discourse (I, for one, love to battle it out on ideas), but I think we
> would all really appreciate it if you step lightly. It's been really
> intense and I am no delicate flower.
>
> Further, although there are a variety of temperaments and responses to what
> happened, there is very little disagreement that the right decision was
> finally made. Actually, I have yet to find any disagreement--only deep
> relief. I have not spoken to everyone, but I have connected with and
> listened to a lot of people. So the idea that there are (or were) just a
> small group of consistent complainers, is not what I have seen and I have
> been on the ground the entire time. In fact, I saw the opposite. I saw
> people go out of their way, extend AGF beyond any reasonable application,
> and then arrive at a similar, if not identical, conclusion.
>
> There appears to have been a story that has succeeded (and been actively
> perpetuated) in some circles for some time. It's a story that paints staff
> as change averse luddites. It may have been told in a slightly more
> friendly manner in public, but that is the thesis if you dig into it. It
> was top notch spin, but it's not true.
>
> The really powerful and disarming story about what's actually going on
> inside? We are a thriving group of capable and principled people coming
> together to do right by a mission and community that we are genuinely
> devoted to. And that is the only part of what's recently happened that
> feels really, really good.
>
> I believe that staff have proven themselves to be legitimate stakeholders
> in this movement. We are worthy of your respect. We are worthy of the
> movement's respect.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <ironho...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Seconded all this from Oliver.
> >
> > To Jimmy: we've been doing Wikipedia and Wikimedia a long time, you and
> I.
> > :) And in that time we've both learned good and bad habits.
> >
> > One of those bad habits is known as "setting the bozo bit" in old school
> > geek culture: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit
> >
> > Tuning out the concerns of people because they often disagree makes our
> own
> > lives easier on the short term, but at best it's a risk that you'll lose
> > useful feedback, and at worst you can alienate people who could have
> become
> > allies on some other topic... Or helped you avoid a sticky situation they
> > saw coming that you didn't.
> >
> > It's something I've tried very hard to get away from when I interact with
> > other developers and users. And sometimes it's really hard. But a lot of
> > the people I unset the bit from are now doing amazing things... Some of
> > them now work for you as WMF developers and managers, and I'm glad I
> didn't
> > mistreat them early on.
> >
> > When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad
> > antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and
> have
> > a lot to tell you.
> >
> > This is the time to listen honestly even (especially?) to those whose
> > narratives mismatch your own.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one
> of
> > those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch
> > out for.
> >
> > Your staff is still raw and suspicious all around; the word "trauma" gets
> > used with total sincerity. We'd really appreciate care in how you
> describe
> > what's happening; it'll go a long way to making the next few days and the
> > further discussions you're planning to make really useful.
> >
> > -- brion
> >
> > >
> > > (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 <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Stillwell
> Major Gifts Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Steward for Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.

+55 (71) 98290-7553
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to