I think it’s important to realise that there *is* a big issue here. How we want to be perceived and how we are actually perceived are *not* the same.
We can argue about WMF vs. community as much as we want, but that won’t change reality.
Please can we focus on how we solve the problem instead of internal bickering? (This applies equally to the community and the brand project.)
Thanks, Mike
On 15 Apr 2020, at 20:05, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. As Deskana has pointed out in the past, painting everyone at WMF with the same brush is problematic. It can demoralize people who do good work.
At the same time, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the same problems occur at WMF year after year. As the saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I think that the WMF Board is a part of the problem. In the meantime, the best that the rest of us can do is to continue to make our opinions known and try to be productive.
I'm reluctant to call for changes of individually identifiable staff without knowing more about the facts of this situation. I simply don't have enough information.
I'm not aware of any large organization which doesn't have recurring problems. WMF is not unique in this regard. That's not an excuse, but I think that it's also important to be realistic.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe