On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anna,
>

Pete,

>
> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full
> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be
> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?


I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.

No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved. Sometimes
there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether
we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth is
that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that
aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”

As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made.
As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and
worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.

As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.

The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
request to grant them.

If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
> tension with
> another one:
>
> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important
> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex,
> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants.
> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a
> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would
> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an
> effort to make it grow or sustain.
>

Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service> and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive
team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.

The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”

>
> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved
> on by then.
>

I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software.
I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week,
however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still
stands.

>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>

/a
[[User:Annaproject]]

>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> >
> > "An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his
> > [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they]
> > return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
> >
> > I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In
> > theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
> constraints.
> > There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
> there
> > are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets
> > the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
> this.
> > But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
> anyone
> > suggest that it was generalized across the org.
> >
> > What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
> this
> > one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
> allow
> > for one person to return to work?
> >
> > Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> >
> > Warmly,
> > /a
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > […]
> > >
> > > > I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve
> > > heard
> > > > them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one
> > is
> > > > required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the
> > > most
> > > > information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go
> > through
> > > > considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> > > working
> > > > to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We
> > want
> > > > people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes
> > > that
> > > > can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their
> vacations
> > > well
> > > > in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just
> so
> > > you
> > > > understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
> > >
> > > > […]
> > >
> > > I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> > > ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> > > ees' stress.  It conveys the organizational expectation that
> > > employees are SPOFs without any backup.  An employee should
> > > not experience their time off as a period where his work
> > > load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> > > where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> > > Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> > > should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> > > be backed and explainable by others.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
> > Fuller
> >
> > Anna Stillwell
> > Director of Culture
> > 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
> > 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>
>



-- 
"If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
Fuller

Anna Stillwell
Director of Culture
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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to