The sincerity and quality of communication in this thread, and is
deep-linked citations, made me grin in an outrageous week. You are all
wonderful.
On the original subject: Interactives are increasingly satisfying to use;
hats off to those involved. No surprise they inspired this shaded
love-fest, and thanks for the active communication.
And, as there are few threads that cannot be improved with some
enthusiastic singing: Perhaps each new reply can contribute to a
karaoke-chain..
.
SJ
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> > Anna,
>
> > I've now read what you quoted for
a third time, and can confirm I did
> > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was
> > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
>
> > As for planning, I am not making
assumptions, but perhaps interpreting
> > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their
> > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
>
> > I can't give a solid estimate of
the "half-life," but I do not think the
> > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
> thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a
"pause" that
necessitates
> addressing uncertainty when discussing popular
features can have a
> significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree is
> > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
>
> Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
>
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
make
> > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
or
> anybody in this thread make demands. Is there
somebody with standing to
> grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile to
> know that the team needs more time, and plans to
share more on a scale
that
> sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's
something specific being
asked of
> > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
>
> I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the
> time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who
commented, who all seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
> with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally
> provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
> In my mind I've been clear and
consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is
> reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made
> this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
>
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
> > like.
>
> Thanks. I'll reach out.
>
> > -Pete
>
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
>
> > On
01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM,
Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Anna,
> >>
> >>>
Pete,
> >
> >> Your
points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
> >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if full
> >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not
be
> >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
> >>
> >
> >> I appreciate that you are trying
to understand what I mean. Thanks.
> >
> >> No, I
didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This
> >> communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved.
> >> Sometimes
> >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know
whether
>> we are right yet and we need a further
unpacking of the facts. The
truth
>> is
>> that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication
that
> >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.”
> >
> >> As for
the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being
> >> made.
> >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
>> more planning is completed. However, it could
be that the explanations
you
> >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law
> >> and
> >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
> >
> >> As for
compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I
> >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
> >
> >> The
team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable
> >> request to grant them.
> >
> >> If so,
I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
> >
> >>>
tension with
> >>> another one:
> >>
> >>>
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
>>> thing. The conditions that make it grow,
shrink, or sustain are
complex,
>>> and largely beyond the influence of a
handful of mailing list
>>> participants.
>>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm
in a
>>> number of venues, and many on this list
(both volunteers and staff)
would
>>> like to see it grow or sustain, and
perhaps throw a little weight
behind
> >>> an
> >>> effort to make it grow or sustain.
> >>
> >>>
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
> >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES
> >>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service
> >> and
> >
> >> what’s
going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
> >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the
> >> interactive
> >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
> >
> >> The
only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause,
> >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during
this
> >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
> >
> >> But
that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
> >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or
moved
> >>> on by then.
> >>
> >>>
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
> >> software.
> >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week,
> >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point
still
> >> stands.
> >
> >> -Pete
> >>> --
> >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >>> /a
> >> [[User:Annaproject]]
> >
> >> On Wed,
Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
> >>>
> >>>
wrote:
> >>
> >>> You
make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> >>>
> >>>>
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where
his
>>>> [her/they] work load is just
temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
> >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
> >>>
> >>>>
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In
> >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
> >>>
> >>>
constraints.
> >>
> >>>>
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
> >>>
> >>>
there
> >>
> >>>>
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that
meets
> >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work on
> >>>
> >>>
this.
> >>
> >>>>
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
> >>>
> >>>
anyone
> >>
> >>>>
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
> >>>
> >>>>
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating
in
> >>>
> >>>
this
> >>
> >>>>
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
> >>>
> >>>
allow
> >>
> >>>>
for one person to return to work?
> >>>
> >>>>
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> >>>
> >>>>
Warmly,
> >>>> /a
> >>>
> >>>>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <
> >>>> tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de
> >>>
> >>>>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>>
>
>>>>> […]
> >>>>>> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is
temporary.
I’ve
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> heard
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but
no
one
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> is
> >>>
>
>>>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with
the
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> most
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> through
> >>>
>
>>>>> considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> working
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> to establish some cultural standards around supporting
vacations.
We
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> want
> >>>
>
>>>>> people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and
sometimes
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> that
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> vacations
> >>
> >>>>
well
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up.
Just
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> so
> >>
> >>>>
you
> >>>>
>
>>>>>> understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
> >>>>>> […]
> >>>>>
>
>>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use-
> >>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ-
> >>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should
> >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work
> >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business.
> >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a
team
> >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but
> >>>>> be backed and explainable by others.
> >>>>
>
>>>>> Tim
> >>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
> >>>> Margaret
> >>>> Fuller
> >>>
> >>>>
Anna Stillwell
> >>>> Director of Culture
> >>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>> 415.806.1536
> >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org
<http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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/wik
> > i/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
>
> --
> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret
> Fuller
> Anna Stillwell
> Director of Culture
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536 <415.806.1536
>
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
<(617)%20529-4266