Hoi,
I would assume that people who spoke in confidence were ASKED if they
wanted to be included. It would be really bad to approach it in any other
way.

As to the knowledge engine. Can we please put it to rest. It has always
been a big misunderstanding. It is not and has never been what the WMF is
looking for and at the same time we could do so much better at search
(having said that we are doing so much better than we did before.

If there is one thing a knowledge engine would be good for is serving our
customers needs. THAT is scary; it is not about "us", the editing
community.. woopedie woo !!
Thanks,
        GerardM

On 4 May 2016 at 12:24, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process
> talked
> > to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups
> of
> > people.
> >
>
> I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were
> coming forward to raise grievances were included in the fact-finding. It
> would be odd not to ;)
>
>
> > - Were the Knight Foundation spoken with?
> >
>
> It might also be worth clarifying whether this was substantially related to
> the Knowledge Engine issue, or whether it was a largely separate set of
> grievances.
>
> While I'm using the word "grievance" - other people have talked about the
> "whistleblowing" policy - but what is being described here is what would in
> the UK be treated as a "workplace grievance". I.e. a staff member being
> concerned that, while their manager or another senior staff member isn't
> doing anything actually fraudulent or illegal, they do feel that the
> conduct of the manager concerned is having a serious impact on their own
> ability to do their job.
>
> Most UK employers have a formal grievance policy which sets out how staff
> should address these issues - including in the event that staff have a
> grievance about the chief executive or board members. Often these set out
> expectations about confidentiality and things like appeal processes.
> (Confidentiality can be a tricky one as a grievance is by its nature a
> communication from a staff member to their employer, and individual mangers
> or trustees actually can't promise to hear this stuff in confidence...)
>
> I don't know if WMF has one of these - perhaps is should?
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to