Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from six-ish years ago: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me> wrote: > Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed > one. It was a long time ago. > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Philippe, Luis, >> >> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first >> time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to >> remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC >> vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either? >> >> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, >> so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known. >> >> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered >> by non-disclosure agreements in your time? >> >> Andreas >> >> Andreas >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me> >> wrote: >> >>> What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded >>> moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never >>> did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: >>> >>>> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have >>>> left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, >>>> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad >>>> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and >>>> beyond the Foundation*. >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike >>>> the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the >>>> Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just >>>> maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never >>>> did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any >>>> different under Katherine.] >>>> >>>> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. >>>> It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one. >>>> >>>> Luis >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anne, Alphos, >>>>> >>>>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and >>>>> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. >>>>> At >>>>> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to >>>>> do >>>>> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs. >>>>> >>>>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents >>>>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a >>>>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?) >>>>> >>>>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure >>>>> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – >>>>> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about >>>>> the >>>>> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here! >>>>> >>>>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the >>>>> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James >>>>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF >>>>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they >>>>> were scared. >>>>> >>>>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump >>>>> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how >>>>> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a >>>>> toxic management culture. >>>>> >>>>> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, >>>>> neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of >>>>> inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2] >>>>> >>>>> Does this inspire anyone with confidence? >>>>> >>>>> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat. >>>>> >>>>> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me >>>>> ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase >>>>> disputes. >>>>> >>>>> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three >>>>> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively >>>>> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board. >>>>> >>>>> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the >>>>> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community >>>>> voting on the enforcement guidelines". >>>>> >>>>> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy >>>>> agreement with the Arbitration Committees. >>>>> >>>>> But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was >>>>> precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with >>>>> projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being >>>>> seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above". >>>>> >>>>> María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal >>>>> Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community >>>>> representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... >>>>> gaslighting. >>>>> >>>>> Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" >>>>> the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of >>>>> psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to >>>>> "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful >>>>> communication >>>>> made in the spirit of a partnership. >>>>> >>>>> The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and >>>>> Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal >>>>> Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that >>>>> it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in >>>>> 2023.[4] >>>>> >>>>> This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, >>>>> there is little reason to trust the WMF. >>>>> >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1033011093#I_feel_like_shit >>>>> [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees >>>>> [4] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULYIF/?sort=date >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andreas - >>>>>> >>>>>> Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else >>>>>> is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia >>>>>> community >>>>>> remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A >>>>>> non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion >>>>>> of >>>>>> their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of >>>>>> the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation >>>>>> rate. >>>>>> It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had >>>>>> an >>>>>> opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do >>>>>> affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't >>>>>> taken >>>>>> advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff >>>>>> are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in >>>>>> that >>>>>> way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any >>>>>> employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is >>>>>> whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any >>>>>> individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their >>>>>> volunteer >>>>>> account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name >>>>>> whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater >>>>>> potential opportunity to control the outcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely >>>>>> developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large >>>>>> projects; >>>>>> thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have >>>>>> been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the >>>>>> experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the >>>>>> volunteer >>>>>> developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied >>>>>> to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many >>>>>> years. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the >>>>>> SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking >>>>>> individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic >>>>>> to >>>>>> have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct >>>>>> Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to >>>>>> decode >>>>>> the results once the standard checks are done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Risker/Anne >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shani, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia >>>>>>> employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, >>>>>>> especially in combination with a 50% threshold. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have >>>>>>> attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head >>>>>>> start of >>>>>>> 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to >>>>>>> vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to >>>>>>> push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the >>>>>>> rebranding >>>>>>> was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are >>>>>>> not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the >>>>>>> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret >>>>>>> ballot >>>>>>> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you say something about this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Andreas >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>>>>> guidelines at: >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>> Public archives at >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>> wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>>>> guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> Public archives at >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QHYUW2MUYYS7ENFIGFG2QUVHMGAKMD2N/ >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>>> guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> Public archives at >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H363UINHJHMBIMZ4Q3LLJBRQJ3Q6YIO4/ >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W7NXRENOSSZWGRUR5AXP7UPWGFP4HWRF/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> -- >>> Philippe Beaudette >>> phili...@beaudette.me >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> >> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3N7PGH4QNZIM25MAOUKH2HMHKEJKOD2E/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V652IJG3GDYEW72A4BC3SKTX3XJF6Q7Y/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > -- > Philippe Beaudette > phili...@beaudette.me > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HHDS3IFL2UUZPQ3QT5YA3T3YTLZ36FZJ/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/F66SZYF5YHJ4IDX2XIUYYX2ODABV4B6A/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
