All:
As a rule, I don't comment on staff arrivals and departures on this list,
even though I often (as in this case) greatly regret seeing talented people
leave the Wikimedia Foundation.
But Siko Bouterse's departure is different.
Siko, in her parting message, used words that are unmistakably candid. We
haven't yet discussed them, and I think we should. Her message is a strong
departure from the kind of announcement that is typically crafted to
present a clean image, giving both the organization and the individual
space a fresh start for whatever comes next. But Siko's words are clearly
her own, and allow us to peek behind the curtain of the WMF, and
increasingly opaque organization.
Most of all, these words stand out:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Siko Bouterse <sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain
> deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent
> those values in a volunteer capacity at this time.
>
These are words no organization would endorse in a carefully planned joint
message. I have no doubt that Siko speaks to us here with her own words,
without edits from WMF management. This is a rare step; I believe it speaks
to Siko's courage and dedication (qualities I have never doubted in her),
and it offers us a rare and important insight into the WMF's increasingly
opaque internal workings.
I am sure Siko chose all her words carefully, and I encourage anyone who
hasn't to read and consider her message carefully.[1] But for now, I'll
limit my comments to the sentence quoted above -- and specifically, the
second of the four values Siko chose to identify.
Integrity must be a core value for any organization. Any effort of multiple
people to work toward a common goal must protect integrity as a baseline
value. It is so central and obvious, in my view, that we Wikimedians have
managed to neglect adding it to the central expressions of our values we
have produced over the years.[2] Integrity is the air we breathe as we work
together -- easy to forget as we focus on values more tangible, more unique
to our movement. But without a basic belief in the integrity in our
immediate colleagues and the system we work in, working effectively toward
a common goal becomes a futile enterprise.
Speaking for myself, the integrity of my various colleagues throughout the
wiki movement -- from the first people I met at Free Geek[3] (where I
encountered my first wiki) and Wikipedia -- is at the core of the
inspiration and the delight that have driven my career and much of my
personal and volunteer activity in the last 15 years. If I were to lose
faith in the central integrity of an organization, I would not be able to
continue working there. I have left many jobs over the years (including at
WMF), for many reasons, not always my own. I often felt strongly at those
moments that my employer was getting something important wrong. But I can't
think of a single instance where I would have made a considered and public
assertion that my employer and I differed over basic integrity. I have had
big and often public disagreements over the years with WMF executives like
Sue Gardner, Erik Moeller, and Zack Exley, and the committee that hired the
current Executive Director; but though I have often questioned or objected
to their decisions, the integrity of these individuals is clear and
obvious, and even at the most contentious moments I have at times
reasserted my respect for their integrity.
So when somebody with Siko's track record (and, dare I say, integrity)
identifies integrity as a key issue in her decision to leave, we should
take notice. There is a lot going on these days; but this message and
event, I believe, can help us rise above the trees for a moment and survey
the forest. If Siko feels that she can represent her values better as a
volunteer -- without a full time paycheck, without the resources and staff
at the disposal of a senior manager at WMF, without a job title and
business card that command respect and enthusiasm across the entire planet
-- that is a bold and important statement indeed.
We should be paying close intention, and if we find ourselves agreeing that
the basic value of integrity is lacking in the WMF, we should seek and find
ways to decisively solve that problem. This goes, I think, for everyone who
cares about the future of Wikimedia, regardless of whether you are a
volunteer, a donor, a staff member, or a board member.
> Much love,
> Siko
>
And much love to you, Siko. You have done excellent work in a variety of
places -- and I'm sure I'm only aware of a small fraction of it. Thank you
especially for the poise and focus you have shown just now, in providing
useful information to the Wikimedia movement even as you leave your formal
role at WMF. I look forward to finding you, perhaps in better spirits as
your big decision recedes into the past, on the wikis.
Happy editing,
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
[2] For example, this page and the pages linked from it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values
[3] http://www.freegeek.org/
Sydney and Risker make a good point that much of the current board is
already fairly new and simply appointing a whole new board is unlikely to
be the solution we now need.
Whether any individual board members feel sufficiently responsible for
recent events that they should resign few but they can say. But the
movement is in a serious mess and it is their duty to ensure we get out of
it.
In the short term the current board vacancy is an opportunity for the
board. Reappointing Doc James would bring back a much respected board
member who already has several months recent WMF board experience. It would
also be a clear signal that the board wanted to start steering the movement
out of the current quagmire. Conversely, not reappointing Doc James risks
leaving the impression that this particular onion has a few more layers yet
to go.
In the medium term the board could reform it's constitution so that over
the next couple of years we move to an all elected board and a membership
system open to all who volunteer time to the project. There are some
discussions about this here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_contro…
I appreciate there are a lot of threads running on the current kerfuffle,
but I think board reform is worth a new thread.
WereSpielChequers
> Message-ID:
> <CAPXs8yRT9xu2tvXpP-27BDzx8njuN=
> RM0ovM9sDda9_0YXZgPg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 22 February 2016 at 22:00, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider
> > > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> > > larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
> >
> > The instability that would result from large scale resignations of
> > Board members would be devastating to WMF.
> >
> > That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF
> > are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And,
> > no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have
> > come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
> >
> > I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent
> > comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
> >
> >
>
> I also agree with Sydney, and will point out that in the past year, we have
> had brand new board members in 3 board-selected seats (one of whom only
> participated for a few weeks), and 3 community seats (two of whom remain in
> place, the third being replaced by a former board member. That is at least
> five new members in a single year, no matter how one cuts it - and it
> doesn't even take into consideration the ongoing process for
> chapter-selected seats.
>
> This past year has already seen the largest turnover in board membership
> that the Foundation has ever experienced; it was unusual to have more than
> two seats change incumbents in all the past years. We have already seen
> very significant change in the make-up of the Board, and half the board is
> still learning the ropes and responsibilities. This level of change is
> likely to be at least partly responsible for some of the unfortunate
> situations we have seen in the last several months. But those who are
> seeking a new board...well, you already have one.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
Personally, i'm not sure if James would like to be reinstated but I think the involuntarily removal of a community elected member without community consultation is barbaric and unethical. However. In my perception, I believe Maria Sefidari's appointment is "interim", perhaps for a fresh election to be conducted. However the BoT should clarify her status. She's a good candidate to me, if she would like to run for a proper election.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:22:26
To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 221
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Craig Franklin)
2. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Todd Allen)
3. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Fæ)
4. Re: I am going to San Francisco (Oliver Keyes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:09:00 +1000
From: Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
To: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman
Message-ID:
<CAHF+k388fSOM4nG0rvgowa7mHEzpBwo=C9Lb26wsmQ3w=shC=g(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed
to the seat vacated by James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html
And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an
election. Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned
María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the
seat formerly occupied by James.
I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed
procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these
community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must
deal with here and now.
Cheers,
Craig
On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
> > While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up,
> > the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
> > politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't think it's
> > realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was,
> and
> > expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
> > place. Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected
> trustee
> > has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.
>
> Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection",
> she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post
> election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes
> to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an
> election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.
>
> I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest
> opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better
> representative if correctly elected.
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 05:16:08 -0700
From: Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
To: cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net, Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman
Message-ID:
<CAGToUqzZ9cb8xovegPm5O-5g4LWTDLxUJ2nRfsmhRA7OvjEzbA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly
feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer
position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to
serve in that role.
I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put forth for a
neutral outside review of the situation are long overdue. And the Board
also needs to seriously reconsider what was (not) communicated when the
situation occurred. Essentially, we got a load of say-nothing PR garbage,
not a frank and thorough explanation, of why a trustee overwhelmingly voted
for by the community had been involuntarily removed without consulting that
same community.
I think there are a few points that need to be thought through. First, it
needs to be clarified what really happened. Jimmy has publicly and bluntly
accused James of lying about the circumstances of his departure, but has
also steadfastly refused to say what he considers the truth to be and why.
Having been accused that way, James has every right to defend himself, but
the entire Board has steadfastly refused to say what they see the truth as
actually being, only releasing PR gibberish that said absolutely nothing.
If James was calling attention to serious problems at the Foundation and
doing everything he could to find out more about them, well, I think it's
pretty clearly turned out that he was in fact right. If that's the case, he
was in fact fulfilling his duty to look after the interests of the WMF. And
if James were acting with some kind of malfeasance (which I consider highly
unlikely, but more as a hypothetical for if such a thing ever did occur),
we need to know that, too, because chances are very good that otherwise,
we'll elect him again by a landslide if he chooses to run again. I'm sure
everyone knows the end of the story if that happens and the Board refuses
to seat him.
Secondly, I think the Board needs to hold a frank and open review of its
processes around dismissing trustees, especially community-selected ones.
Even if it's not technically legally required to consult the community
before the fact or frankly inform them why a decision was made after, is
relying on a legal technicality to do an end-run around the community
election process an appropriate way of handling things? I think that
question deserves careful consideration.
Additionally, I think it needs to be considered whether a formal apology is
owed. Even if too much water has passed under the bridge for reinstatement
to be workable, saying "Hey, we're sorry, you actually brought up valid
concerns even if we didn't agree with your methods at the time" might be a
very good step toward the healing process. (If that's actually true, of
course.) If the Board shot the messenger rather than addressing serious
problems (and, well, that's what a lot of us think), that needs to be
candidly addressed.
And finally, I think the communication style in itself needs to be
reexamined. A lot of trustees come from corporate backgrounds where that
type of opaque, "nothing to see here folks, move along" style of
communication is acceptable and expected. Wikimedians generally expect
better than that, and I think we should expect better than that. Ducking
and weaving around direct questions breeds mistrust; sunlight is the best
disinfectant. If you don't think your actions would be defensible if you
publicly and frankly say why you undertook them, you probably need to
rethink them. There will of course be times that some information will be
necessarily private, but that should be considered an exception that must
be well-justified, not the rule. And if that is the case, don't try to spin
and obfuscate with a bunch of PR junk, just frankly say "We (can't|won't)
tell you that because _________."
The volunteer community does need the WMF. After all, someone's got to keep
the servers running, and handle things like legal services and the millions
of dollars that flow through the organization. But the WMF needs the
volunteer community too, or it may as well just shut the lights off on the
way out. Each side should see the other as an equal and necessary partner
and as an ally towards the common aim of creating the best free and open
educational resources possible.
Right now, it seems that a lot of the community sees the WMF as an
overbearing would-be "owner" of the projects that needs to be pushed back
at every turn, and it seems the WMF sees the community as a nuisance to be
stiff-armed out of the way if it dares to get in the way of some grand
strategy. That's not a healthy dynamic, and we don't fix it without open,
fully transparent, and honest communication.
Well, that turned out longer than I expected, but I can't really find any
parts that I don't think need to be said. I think we're at a unique
opportunity to reexamine how the WMF can best serve the goals of the
movement, and what its role should be in doing so. I think we're also at a
point to consider what exactly the Board's role should be in that, what its
priorities should be, and how it should operate under difficult
circumstances. Obviously, what happened this time was not optimal. Please
keep the lines of communication open as you move forward with any reviews
and reconsiderations. For better or worse, the perception will be that if
you're not talking about it, you aren't thinking about it and don't care.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:34:39 +0000
From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
To: Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman
Message-ID:
<CAH7nnD2fBeU3yxcLJjJCb+UGy5g1X1boZp1WeNDzQfsm1vU8Zw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Yes, we are in agreement. Maria is an 'Appointed Trustee', not a
'Community Selected Trustee'. So the number of 'Appointed Trustees'
went up by one, the number of 'Community Selected Trustees' went down
by one.
For political convenience, the WMF board is spinning her seat on the
board as if she were a Community Selected Trustee, but it's obviously
not true unless we start redefining the plain English meaning of
words. The result is a board with a democratic deficit, and the way
most trustee boards with elected members handle this is to ensure that
the appointed replacement will be obliged to stand for election at the
earliest opportunity.
I welcome a procedure like this to be written up for the WMF board so
that we can avoid the difficulty of vacated seats in a more credible
way. The current system of bartering and balancing lists of pros and
cons between sitting trustees, their lawyers, and a volunteer election
committee that is appointed by the Board of Trustees, is unhealthy and
it is a fantasy to imagine that the end result can be called
democratic.
It would be a comfort if Maria Sefidari would confirm that she will be
running for an election by offering up her seat at the earliest
possible opportunity, rather than gripping on to it based on the
tenure granted by James Heilman's democratic selection. We voted in an
election where the winner of the election was the selected candidate,
shifting the meaning of what our votes were for after the election, so
the board can later on pick and chose from a list of candidates that
they find to their political tastes, is not the way we want to run
transparent and credible elections.
Fae
On 27 February 2016 at 12:09, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> wrote:
> Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed
> to the seat vacated by James Heilman:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html
>
> And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an
> election. Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned
> María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the
> seat formerly occupied by James.
>
> I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed
> procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these
> community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must
> deal with here and now.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net>
>> wrote:
>> > While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make
>> > up,
>> > the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
>> > politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't think it's
>> > realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was,
>> > and
>> > expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in
>> > place. Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected
>> > trustee
>> > has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.
>>
>> Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection",
>> she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post
>> election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes
>> to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an
>> election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.
>>
>> I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest
>> opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better
>> representative if correctly elected.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 08:22:23 -0500
From: Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco
Message-ID:
<CADRwj989LV51mvdMTxOa+8A4bOTR-GDhCiuwaHmbfsBEEFNyrg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Anthony has hit the nail on the head here with "could be used to
punish or intimidate staff"; the reason I, at least, am uncomfortable
talking about the internal details here (beyond the obvious PR
elements for the Foundation) is that there's a lot of ongoing fear
about repercussions. A couple of years ago this wouldn't have been the
case.
(This also indirectly answers the "can we see your NDA?" question. I
don't know. And hell, I'm this scared having *already quit*.)
More guidance, and public guidance at that, would be deeply
appreciated. Within the Discovery Analytics team we've gone out of our
way to write up pretty all-encompassing guidelines specifically for
data (which I look forward to being able to publish pretty soon - we
just got clearance to do so). It would be nice to have more firm
guidance on what we should do with transparency around other kinds of
information. It would, of course, be even nicer if we could rebuild
trust, since that's the source of a lot of the fear.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not just NDAs that constrain you, staff. The WMF code of conduct
> <https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_policy> (that
> applies to staff and trustees) reads,
>
> "People acting on the Foundation’s behalf must respect and maintain the
> confidentiality of sensitive information they have gained due to their
> association with the Foundation. This may include personal information
> about community members or members of the general public, and/or
> information about the internal workings of the Foundation or its partners
> or suppliers."
>
> "Information about the internal workings of the Foundation" is extremely
> broad and vague, and could be used to punish or intimidate staff who talk
> openly about anything. Perhaps you could add "some" ("some information
> about the internal workings of the Foundation") and leave it to the
> individual NDAs to specify what "some" means. Or perhaps you could just be
> specific in the code of conduct.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:51 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information
>> is
>> > cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds
>> > with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides
>> > cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will
>> prompt
>> > WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency,
>> > openness, and values alignment.
>> >
>> > Pine
>> >
>>
>> While on a base level I agree with you I feel its important to add some
>> caveats to that. I think a good portion of this is actually everyone
>> needing a better understanding about what 'is' expected to be private (and
>> preferably why) from Management on down. I think a lot of what people are
>> calling "under the NDA" may not be :).
>>
>> I also think it's important to consider the categories of private
>> data/information too, however, because i fear we (both the staff and the
>> community) use "under NDA" as a very broad and note always accurate
>> description. The way I see it there is:
>>
>>
>> 1. Private WMF Data or information that is most definetly covered by the
>> NDA: examples include most donor data, attorney-client privileged
>> information, information that is legally protected, information we
>> protect
>> via official public policy etc.
>> 2. Information and notes that really don't need to be private: This is
>> the stuff we're talking about releasing.
>> 3. Inter personal/team discussions and similar.
>>
>> [sorry, this turned out tldr, apologies. TLDR: Careful demanding sharing of
>> internal team discussions]
>>
>> 3. I actually think is really important because it is not what we think of
>> when we think of private information (and, honestly, probably isn't under
>> the NDA usually) but can be very important to be kept privately even if the
>> end result of the discussion should be made public etc.. This is especially
>> true to allow open conversations between staff members. Not only do they
>> need to feel comfortable bringing up crazy idea A (which some are now and
>> could probably be done more with culture change, possible on both the
>> community and WMF sides) but they need to feel comfortable saying that
>> crazy idea A is crazy and bad for reasons X,Y and Z.
>>
>> Lodewijk made my main point well in the thread about Lawrence Lessig:
>> People get very uncomfortable talking about others in public. If Staff
>> member B is breaking apart Staff member A's proposal there is a good chance
>> at least one of them is going to be feeling very uncomfortable about it.
>> That discomfort often gets much bigger the more people who see what's
>> happening either because they feel more shame (to pick just one of the
>> emotions you can feel in that type of situation) or because they feel like
>> they're doing more shaming then they want to do. That expanded discomfort
>> can make them significantly less likely to do any number of things we don't
>> want: get more defensive/less willing to change, be less wiling to propose
>> those bold ideas that could be really great (or not), be less willing to
>> speak out against the bad ideas etc.
>>
>> The other reason is another one that I imagine we're all familiar with on
>> wiki: The more people who pile on in one direction (even if it's only 2-3
>> frequently) (and in my experience the more public that discussion) the less
>> likely people are going to be to oppose what the direction those initial
>> commentators/voters/blah went. Suddenly people feel like they need to
>> defend their opinion much more then they would otherwise or that they could
>> be faced with angry opposition. These concerns are certainly possible on
>> internal teams and mailing lists (the WMF Staff list is somewhat famous for
>> people being afraid to pile on after a lot of people went the other way and
>> I know some, including me, are trying to change that) but they become more
>> and more of a concern the wider that audience becomes and publishing those
>> discussions is a VERY wide audience.
>>
>> I think that publishing the Discovery Team meeting with lila recently was a
>> right and proper move but I also think it was likely an exception to the
>> rule. Seeing people disagree so strongly and publicly with one of their
>> regular colleagues could very well scare away those colleagues and we don't
>> want that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James Alexander
>> Manager
>> Trust & Safety
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 221
*********************************************
Hi all -
I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread. To an informed
observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to
a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious. It would be
unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who was
actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if Dr.
James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the next
three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation. His removal wasn't a surprise to him,
he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
the Wikimedia Foundation.
And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
----
Kevin Gorman
I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of rebuilding.
Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the community, and
even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called United
States.
Thoughts?
+1 to Yurik
<!-- it seems to me that a lot of troubles are coming from the "grey line"
between our wikiworld, where you are free to nominate people and talk
almost about anything you want publicly (including your own pros and cons
in any role there is available), and a real world, where you are afraid to
tell people that you (dis)agree because of this and that. and the worst
thing is that people change their behaviour too much passing that "grey
line", so it is difficult to tell where they were more true to
themselves... and open (not secret) voting can be a real advantage, btw :)
-->
best regards,
antanana
2016-02-27 1:23 GMT+02:00 Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org>:
> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks. My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone. In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
>
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk" <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward
> to
> > discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
> >
> > To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered
> rude
> > by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
> > people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
> possibly
> > be a slap in the face of someone you like.
> >
> > If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
> > board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <
> yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
> > Raul
> > > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
> > > current role.
> > >
> > > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
> > > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
> > > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
> > > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
> > > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
> > > direction-determining force.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
> > > >
> > > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
> > > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has
> been
> > > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
> > > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
> > > > decision.
> > > >
> > > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
> > > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
> > > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
> > > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
> > > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of
> feeling
> > > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in
> hearing
> > > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
> > > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
> > > > informed.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
> > dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
> brand
> > > of
> > > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
> > > position
> > > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
> > > > >
> > > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an
> awkward
> > > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
> > start
> > > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
> > > with a
> > > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
> > > > >
> > > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
> > It
> > > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
> > and
> > > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other
> and
> > we
> > > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
> > is
> > > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Original Message
> > > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case,
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally,
> > > share
> > > > > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of
> rebuilding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawrence Lessig seems to have a very strong support in the
> community,
> > > and
> > > > > even attempted to run (unsuccessfully) a large organization called
> > > United
> > > > > States.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
As a former techie I find phabricator a difficult environment to bug
report in or lobby for a change. I sympathise with anyone as technical
than me or less who ventures there. Sometimes I'm left scratching my
head and wondering whether the closing of a bug or request and
redirecting to one that seems to me unrelated is an honest mistake, a
technically correct but buried in jargon move, or just vandalism.
Relations between techie and non techie are an important area for the
movement to work on. Whether the perceived improvements of the
Tretikova era were down to Lila, to others arriving, departing or
passing through; I hope that in future we try to do better there,
despite the loss of key people and the halving of the frequency of
Wikimania.
On the broader issue of being tech led and narrowing focus; Arguably
one of our biggest problems is that Google, Firefox et al are finding
ways for people to access the content we create without the clutter of
edit buttons, and in some cases attribution and legalese. Think
Mediaviewer for everything, threatening the secret sauce that fuels
our movement. The Knowledge Engine may have been an attempted tech
response to that problem, but whether or not that could have succeeded
with a few extra tens of millions, it was a very expensive tech hammer
for a problem best approached by diplomacy backed up with lawyers. In
narrowing the WMFs focus we wound up using the wrong tool. I've
drafted an alternative approach here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Strategy/Reach#WereSpielChequers
TTFN
Jonathan / WereSpielChequers
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:38:31 +0300
> From: Yuri Astrakhan <yastrakhan(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?
> Message-ID:
> Oliver, thanks!
>
>> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
> and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
>
> If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
> can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others to do
> it. They use fundamentally different, scarcely overlapping skill-sets. An
> engineer might go via the "hackathon + demo" route, implementing something
> simple and showing it to gain traction. A non-engineer would start with the
> social aspect first - talking to others if the idea is worth pursuing, how
> hard is it to do, and eventually - convincing others to allocate their
> time/resources to do it. Sometimes an engineer may go the social route
> instead, but it would be very hard for a non-engineer to engage in
> development. Lastly, the "designer" group has an amazing skill-set to
> visually present their full vision rather than the demo, thus often having
> easier time of conveying their thoughts.
>
> In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
> second group? Also, no matter how hard we try, it would be either very
> hard, or very expensive (and not just financially) to force the
> implementers to do an idea they do not believe in. So in a sense, doers
> need to be persuaded first and foremost.
>
> As with any explanation, a picture == 1000 words, so we could promote "idea
> visualizers" - designers who are easily approachable and could help to draw
> up a few sketches of the idea.
>
>
>
(Sorry for the crossposting)
Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are
officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference
wiki:
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
The calls will be closed on March 20.
Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things
which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will
surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!
Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the
wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.
Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that
we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in
order to be put in the programme.
By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted
proposals.
If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages
on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers,
of course).
We are looking forward to read your ideas!
Ginevra
Wikimania 2016 Programme Committee
I stopped responding to other emails because the significance of this
moment is so large, that we have now we didn't have since the
beginnings of Wikipedia.
We've got the chance to rebuild the movement.
I don't want to talk about the past, I don't want to write about what
I think about particular ongoing events, I don't want to think about
anything else and I urge on all of you to do the same.
Just one small part of the movement -- those personally involved --
see this moment emotionally and could feel the significance of the
moment. The most of the movement, including myself, didn't participate
emotionally and I understand why they could have troubles to get the
perspective.
As mentioned before, for the first time in the decade, we have Board
members discussing the issues with us honestly. But that's just one
part of the story.
The other part, even more significant, is exactly that emotional,
cathartic process lived during the past year by that small part of the
movement, WMF staff.
As I said above, I don't want to talk about my particular position
regarding those events, as they are irrelevant. The relevant part is
their experience, their cohesion, their contemplation of various
issues related to themselves, their colleagues and the movement; their
will to succeed and, eventually, their success.
That changes a lot! We've finally got visible another stakeholder
inside of our movement, stakeholder capable to do things nobody else
inside of the movement can. That also gives them much more
responsibility than they had earlier. It's not anymore just about
their dream jobs, but also about the fate of our movement.
You proved to be capable. Last couple of weeks I read many insightful
emails from you, WMF employees -- some of them I didn't know at all. I
heard thoughts I've never heard before on this list. They've been born
in pain and you mustn't lose them.
Now you have the opportunity to lead *the* change. You are not anymore
just the most organized part of the movement, you've just articulated
yourself as capable to make the change you want to.
You have the means, the organizational infrastructure, not the Board,
which is working properly just under pressure, not C-level management,
which is struggling to find the way between dysfunctional Board and
reality. It's about you, engineers, analysts, managers, designers,
scientists, researchers, advocates, liaisons etc. You've already
changed your culture, it's now your turn to help others to change the
movement culture!
You win your own revolution. It's now time for you to help the rest of
us in your and our common revolution.
I imagine one democratic Wikimedia movement, based on solidarity,
common values and common culture. I imagine all of us have the same
goals and help each other to achieve them. I imagine us as the seed
for the future United Federations of Planets (and, yes, when I come to
San Francisco, I want you to show me Starfleet Command!).
So, please, go back to your revolutionary cells, create your vision of
our movement while listening the input of the rest of us, present it
to us on Meta, lead the discussion, lead the revolution! You've shown
that you are capable to do that.
The right time to do that is now! Please, don't miss this
once-in-lifetime opportunity!
--
Milos
Congrats, Katy!!!
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Maggie Dennis" <mdennis(a)wikimedia.org>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, <wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 1:02 AM
Hello, all.
I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the role
of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking up
the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first program
officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m grateful
to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.
We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
grants program in the weeks ahead.
Best regards,
Maggie
P.S. Their page! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources
--
Maggie Dennis
Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>