Heh (: I have no problem with those emails being published.
Just for clarification: I do believe that there is value in some
confidential and 1-on-1 communications. Where I think there is room for
change is with regards to a governing body of an open-source organization
(in this case, the WMF board) limiting access to so many of its official
deliberations. I would strongly prefer that official deliberations of a
governing body be open to the public. I feel that public deliberations
provide important benefits: more credibility, reduction of the risks of
groupthink, encouragement of civility in meetings, and increased
accountability to the public.
I'm happy to provide further details on Washington State laws on open
meetings and public records. Generally I feel that they provide good
guidance. There are exceptions, for example in the cases of attorney-client
privileged information, personnel matters, or deliberations about pending
property acquisitions. I feel that the reasons for the exceptions are
generally well designed, and it's important that closed-door official
meetings are the exception rather than the norm.
Pine
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Thyge <ltl.privat(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Transparently, I suppose?
Thyge
2016-01-06 19:31 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:
Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the
subjects of turnover and
WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this.
Pine
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin
<
cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net
> >
> wrote:
>
> > While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or
> > increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary
of
reading too much into submissions to sites like
Glassdoor. Employees
that
are content rarely take the time to report this,
so you end up with a
skewed sample consisting largely of the unhappy and demotivated.
Looking a bit further into Glassdoor disproves that theory.
For comparison, here are two non-profits of roughly similar size for
comparison:
* NPR has an approval rating of 4.0 out of 5, based on 96 reviews, with
79%
> saying they would recommend working there to a friend.[1]
>
> * The American Enterprise Institute has an approval rating of 4.1 out
of
5,
based on 53 reviews, with 89% saying they would
recommend working there
to
a friend.[2]
You can find approval ratings in excess of 90% on Glassdoor for some
large
> corporates, based on literally thousands of reviews.
>
> [1]
>
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-NPR-EI_IE3965.11,14.htm
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-AEI-EI_IE151782.11,14.htm
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>