Gerard,

If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
particularly good?

Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
contribute to the WMF strategic planning process?  If so, by all means say
so explicitly.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp,
> I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
>
> It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
> What community?
> Thanks,
>         GerardM
>
> Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com
> >
>
> > Anna
> >
> >
> > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
> understanding
> > > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in
> > > simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
> > >
> >
> > Got it, thanks for asking.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > So for example, in the
> > > > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
> between
> > > > members of the community with an interest in and experience of
> software
> > > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
> > the
> > > > software roadmap would be effective.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
> do.
> > > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to
> > > build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
> decided
> > > upon
> > > they consult members on how to build it?  Or are you saying both?
> > >
> >
> > I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright
> > ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
> some
> > ivory tower.  I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the
> > strategic level.  To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
> lot
> > of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia.  Early
> consultation
> > would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> > English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> > social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> > work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> > implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily
> > even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
> > Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects
> > really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
> representable
> > by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> > genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
> .
> > This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of
> > collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning.  It would
> also
> > require a Roadmap, see below.
> >
> > The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
> guidelines
> > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> >
> >
> > > > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > > > some time.
> > >
> > >
> > > How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
> not a
> > > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
> > not
> > > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> > achieved
> > > *the
> > > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait
> to
> > > hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
> > >
> >
> > Explained above.  In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
> and
> > transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > that
> > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > fought
> > > for it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > >
> >
> > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> at
> > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.  What has
> > changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different
> > this year?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
> > plan
> > > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
> > hanging
> > > > by these events.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> > > mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go
> so
> > > far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
> > times.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap
> and
> > it has consistently declined to do so.  It has also consistently refused
> to
> > even say why it does not do so.  Do you have any ideas on the matter?  I
> > can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to
> > enumerate.
> >
> >
> >    1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
> >    lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
> >    2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it
> too
> >    difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
> >    3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased
> to
> >    admit that it has not yet got round to doing it
> >    4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it
> knows
> >    the Community would not like it
> >    5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the
> >    effort to publish it
> >    6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a
> wide
> >    range of subjects including this one
> >
> > Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone
> > > would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What
> > > would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent
> > > publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
> > >
> >
> > It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with
> > the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to
> > identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to
> > better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to
> > plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new
> > technologies and systems.
> >
> >
> > > And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the
> > > ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important
> > > problems.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire
> to
> > expose its view of those problems.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > >
> > > and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your
> > > name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking
> or
> > > even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
> >
> >
> > To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my
> real
> > name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional
> > wizard from the far future.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > astillw...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rogol,
> > > >
> > > > Good to hear from you.
> > > >
> > > > "I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
> way
> > > > answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
> > > > productive
> > > > form of engagement between the two sides."
> > > >
> > > > Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically
> in
> > > this
> > > > instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> > > > spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> > > > communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
> > > >
> > > > "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not
> for
> > > the
> > > > Community."
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should
> always
> > be
> > > > learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > /a
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
> > way
> > > > > answerable to the Community.  I would have thought that was the
> least
> > > > > productive form of engagement between the two sides.  The issue is
> > > what,
> > > > if
> > > > > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > carry on doing their work.  Wes Moran says that they will be
> > delivered
> > > on
> > > > > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed
> > by
> > > > > Chris Koerner to planning.  But doing planning better is a lesson
> for
> > > > > management to learn, not for the Community.  It so happens that I
> > have
> > > > > advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier
> > and
> > > > at a
> > > > > higher level.  But I do not regard this setback as attributable to
> > the
> > > > > Foundation's reluctance to do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rogol"
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
> > > > > community
> > > > > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
> > team?
> > > > Or
> > > > > > was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X,
> Y,
> > > and
> > > > > Z.
> > > > > > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears
> the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give
> you
> > > our
> > > > > > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
> > > > expressing
> > > > > > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
> > > out.
> > > > 2)
> > > > > > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to
> the
> > > WM
> > > > > > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
> > > People
> > > > > who
> > > > > > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are
> few
> > > and
> > > > > far
> > > > > > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
> > > > continue
> > > > > > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
> > > food
> > > > on
> > > > > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > > movement will pick him up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, 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
> > > > > > > *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>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> >
> > > > > > > James Heilman
> > > > > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > > > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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/
> 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