Per my commitment, we have now added this escalation process/whistleblower
policy to the WMF staff handbook to address the issues discussed in this
"To serve the WMF Guiding Principles of shared power and stewardship, it's
important that our work reflects community policies. If you feel that some
of your work is not consistent with key community policies, you should feel
free to escalate the matter to your manager, the Deputy Director, or the
Executive Director, as appropriate under the circumstances."
We will also do work around staff training as I previously mentioned,
including adding this to our on-boarding.
Thanks to everyone who have provided input on this issue.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You are correct -- this did not
make my "to do" list, but I believe honoring commitments made by the WMF is
important and therefor I've been looking this issue. Here is what I found
and what we will do:
- This issue was a clear oversight error.
- To prevent issues like these in the future two paths are important:
1. ability to highlight issues through escalation
2. improved clarity on which programs or grants qualify for funding
(through training) and the process by which that is done
- The first point will be addressed this quarter by HR in the employee
handbook through the modified escalation policy and escalation channel.
- The second will be addressed through changes to grantmaking program,
which we proposed to open for discussion this spring/summer (Q4/Q1)
starting with the FDC-level grants
In short, we are looking to be very clear on goals, parameters, and focus
of grants we distribute to ensure they are handled and validated
consistently and accurately.
The two aspects together should help avoid these types of issues. I am
also asking to include some "'guardrail" items in employee training. No
system is perfect however, and we will continue to tune it to avoid
Finally, while I sincerely appreciate you bringing up the issue, I would
also appreciate if this is done without snark or disparagement in the
future. This would ensure everyone is more productive in their solutions.
We will respond in kind.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
Sue Gardner, 01/04/2014 05:23:
On 21 March 2014 13:23, Erik Moeller
We will update the wiki page at
with more information and details. I encourage others to participate
in this as a collaborative process.
For everyone: following up on Erik's e-mail, the WMF has done a
postmortem of the Belfer situation, which I've just posted at the link
from Erik above.
The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a
better process for
staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014.
I think we're well past the deadline–unless "2014" was a typo for
or "ED" a typo for "Sue Gardner in her spare time". Any updates?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/