On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:41, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@kozminski.edu.pl wrote:
One of the problems we identified was that the Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not staying for a long period of time
Does anyone know why this is? This sounds like a pretty critical buried lead if the very top level of leadership isn't invested enough to stick around. Sure they might be excellent technically, but if they dip after a year or so, they're not really going to drive long-term technical progress for the projects. Even if you miss out on having a year of Captain Awesome before s/he leaves for SpaceX or whatever, would it be better to have 5 years or more of someone who can completely immerse themselves in the technology involved and understand the issues end-to-end and inside-out (or perhaps better still: someone who _already_ knows it)?
Wikimedia is different to other tech darlings, because it is, hopefully, not trying to drum up valuations for a quick and lucrative exit, so I'm not sure why cycling C-level executives like there's an IPO around the corner and you need to look dynamic and profitable is helpful.
It was also important that the new CEO (Chief Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience and leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with the understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
I'd be interested to know the perspective coming from Reddit, as it seems there have been some serious issues there over the years. Since I generally avoid Reddit, I'm not aware of them in excruciating detail, other than that being partly why I do avoid Reddit in the first place. Perhaps an (ex-)insider will be well placed to help avoid things like:
* Some Reddit communities being famously toxic, and even bordering on illegal[1]] * Reddit communities being siloed from each other, leading to "echo chambers" and general animosity * Misinformation of various sorts is rife (Covid threw this into sharp relief with specific demonstrable cases, but it's not new), not to mention the crypto-scams * Conflict between "the mods" and "the users" (and infighting between mods), not to mention secretive modding and practises like auto-shadowbanning * Distrust between "the community/ies" and the company itself * The Reddit "product" has come out with some very hostile un-features: ** Forcing login to read most of it in the first place on a mobile ** Top-down redesign which was impressively unpopular, even for a website redesign[2], especially because they then crippled the mobile site anyway with app-nags and full-on browser-blocks ** Advertising is pervasive and dishonestly disguised as content (if you use the app, so I suppose that's why they force you into it when they can) ** Scads of other dark patterns[3][4]
Not all will translate to Wikimedia projects, due to the open nature and different goals. Nevertheless, I think there are some parallels to be drawn. Hopefully Luis will be well positioned to have insight on how to avoid such issues.
Cheers,
--IL
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communities [2] This guarantees drama, as everyone knows, no matter how amazing the new thing is [3] https://ognjen.io/reddits-disrespectful-design/ [4] Interestingly, Reddit does actually manage to have a correct cookies dialog, unlike novi.com which would probably be outright illegal in the EU since you can't decline ad/tracking cookies