----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:07:04 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
snip
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.
I don't know that could agree that *it is stating to become commonplace* It has always been this way. Back when volunteers made the sorts of decisions (or by default failed to make the decisions) that staff now make; they were heavily criticized (much more than I felt warranted given the comparative lack of resources). Let's ask Anthere how supportive she remembers foundation-l being during the "working board" days. The very first staffers dealt with this as well and it simply continues on today. Historically heavy criticism has even made by people who now happen to be employed as staff (I am thinking of you Erik :) ) Certainly the former mailing list dissidents that are now employed by the WMF should be explain to the rest of the staff and prospective staff what to expect from mailing list dissidents. Erik could honestly put together quite the portfolio for such a course. Of course *most* of the staff shouldn't have to deal with this sort of thing at all, MZMcBride makes a good separation of expectations regarding different kinds of staff. Those who are hired to deal with community issues, however, will have to learn how to deal with community issues in the framework of how the community exists and has historically operated, not how to the deal with communities when the communities finally learn to stop operating in the manner they have always operated in.
Comments like earlier ones that "staff may just stopping posting on foundation-l if you guys aren't nicer" miss the point. That would be WMF's loss much more than foundation-l's. WMF will be able to do much more that it *wants to do* if it can successfully engage with the communities. The communities will be able to do a large majority of what they want to do with or without WMF. WMF only makes the communities more efficient not inherently viable. The reverse is not true.
Birgitte SB