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 <jayen466@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_______________________________________________On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker <risker.wp@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 <jayen466@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-leave@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-leave@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-leave@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-leave@lists.wikimedia.org