The sincerity and quality of communication in this thread, and is deep-linked citations, made me grin in an outrageous week. You are all wonderful.
On the original subject: Interactives are increasingly satisfying to use; hats off to those involved. No surprise they inspired this shaded love-fest, and thanks for the active communication. And, as there are few threads that cannot be improved with some enthusiastic singing: Perhaps each new reply can contribute to a karaoke-chain.. . SJ On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Anna, > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on this > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree is > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. > > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!). > > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile to > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale that > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked of > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the > time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work. > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help? > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd > > like. > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out. > > > > > -Pete > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > > > >> 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> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > i/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 <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> -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 <(617)%20529-4266> _______________________________________________ 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>
