On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ironholds, I think that you're taking a negative interpretation. It seems
> to me that any ED candidate is going to want to know what they're getting
> into before agreeing to take the job, and if forks are on the horizon --
> whether planned or only under consideration -- then this is something that
> they should know about. It also seems to me that the target skill set and
> experience that WMF is seeking should take these issues into consideration.
The interpretation I'm taking is that you're asking for complexities
and slowdowns in an already slow and complex process. Is that
Yes, the ED candidate should know what they're getting into, but one
mailing list discussion does not a probability or even a plausible
possibility make. If we informed the candidates about everything that
had ever been discussed on the mailing lists, they'd die of old age
before we'd finished.
It would be nice if the ED candidate had skills that could be applied
to fork or delegate creation, sure, because it's always nice to find
candidates who are overqualified. But that doesn't mean we hire for
"must have skill at forking". That's not how skills work. We hire for
judgment and experience governing similar organisations, and then we
The old job description does not include "must be capable of suing the
NSA" - yet we managed to pull it off. Because what the old JD did call
for was an awareness and interest in public policy, and sound judgment
about what public policy issues put the movement and its goals at
risk. We hire for broad areas, not narrow. The broad areas for forking
would, presumably, be a desire to empower people at the lowest
possible level, which is already part of the process - because however
flawed we are at it sometimes (a lot of the time, really) that is
inherently part of the movement's goals and principles.
> Andy, as far as I know there have been periodic mentions of this idea off
> and on for years, but I'm unaware if the WMF Board is actively pondering
> this issue.
You're unaware of if the WMF Board is actively pondering this issue.
None of us are. In fact, the only commentary we have on this issue at
all recently is a single mailing list thread.
Yes, it's been debated on and off for years. It's the very definition
of a perennial proposal. And for what it's worth, I'm actually a fan
of delegating elements of the organisation's activities or creating
spinoffs! But that doesn't mean it's worth throwing in a job
description or factoring into the hiring process for an executive
director of an organisation that spent 18 months on ED hiring _before_
it was systemically traumatised.
> I'm revising my thinking as we continue this conversation and I appreciate the
Well, I for one won't *be* continuing this conversation. What I said
to you was "that sounds non-trivial, please consider the disruption
and misery drawing this process out is likely to cause people". And
beyond saythat it's easier than it sounds - without, actually,
providing any evidence that it's easier than it sounds - you've done
none of that.
As a community member, as a former staffer, as a human being, I am
tired of conversations which, while polite on the surface, simply
gloss over or ignore the actual human cost of decisions that might be
reached, or the cost of even participating in the conversations in the
first place. I asked you to factor these costs in. I'm not seeing that
done. I'm not interested in engaging in discussions which lack that
consideration, any more. Our limited time on this tiny blue ball is
far too valuable for that.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com