I realize that Oliver has departed from this conversation, but since this is a public discussion I wanted to respond to one point in particular, which is "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." I agree. However, the Meta page implies that there has already been a decision that WMF will continue for the foreseeable future as a 250+ person organization. Based on recent experience of what happens when so much risk and responsibility is concentrated in WMF, and things go very wrong at WMF, it therefore seems the current model of putting so many eggs in one basket is ripe for rethinking.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: >They aren't. Its an incredibly bad idea to the point where people of >significance aren't even going to bother engaging with it. I'm curious to hear how you come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea. I think quite the contrary. Perhaps we can discuss this in a new thread? Thanks, Pine On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > incorrect? > > 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 > trust. > > 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 > > questions. > > > > 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: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>