On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, to escape the unfounded criticism.
This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore.
Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make.
A few Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki....)
It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "wrong," that's a bad and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" public list we have.)
You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault.
-Dan