It's not a reason to *dismiss* it, no, but it's definitely not a
reason to entirely reorganise our plans for organisational governance
in case it turns out to get traction at *some* point. And that's what
you're talking about here; making monumental changes to the timetable,
scope and demands of a very important hiring decision, because 'an
idea [was] hatched by a few people'.
The new ED should know what the plan is. But at the moment, there *is*
no plan. When you've come up with one, and people have agreed with it,
it will be an appropriate time to stick a spanner in the works. Until
then, what you're suggesting is massively over the top for the
interest the plan has got so far.
I'll be honest and say I'm pretty disappointed by your approach's
failure to consider the human cost of decisions here. The organisation
is in some amount of chaos and uncertainty, with an associated cost in
stress and ill-enjoyment for the people participating in it. You're
suggesting perpetuating that chaos. Yes, Katherine is a great interim
ED from everything I've seen, but I haven't seen you ask if she wants
to do the job long-term, which is something your idea is entirely
premised on: being able to put the burden on her, or someone like her,
while we tilt at windmills. Some consideration has to be given to the
human beings involved in this process - to the fact that this is not
an abstract theoretical exercise in optimal governance, but for a lot
of people 8-12 hours of their day, and disruptions to it carry heavy
risks, particularly given how unpleasant things have been over the
last 6-12 months.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andy,
Just because an idea is hatched by a few people isn't a reason to dismiss
it. Otherwise, how would ideas get traction?
It seems to me that any incoming ED needs to know what the plan is, if
there is a plan, regarding possible forks from WMF. It's also highly
desirable that, if this is being actively considered, that the ED should be
someone who has experience with forks. On the other hand if the plan is to
continue with WMF in its current form, then maybe WMF should look for a
unicorn again who can manage the wide scope of WMF's activities. So the
question of whether WMF is thinking about forks is something that should go
into the calculus of the ED selection process.
Given the history of WMF, it seems to me that a fork is something that the
ED and the Board should have on their radar as possible and maybe even
likely as a desirable option. Katherine seems to be quite capable as an
interim ED, so it seems to me that this buys us some time to think
carefully about the experience that we're looking for in the next
longer-term ED (who might be Katherine); whether or not we're looking for
experience with forks is something that I think would be prudent to
consider at this stage.
I like a lot of the other ideas that are listed on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Executive_Director_Tra….
It's this issue of what to do with regard to a potential fork that I'm
trying to wrap my head around, and I hope that the Board and others are
too. I tend to think that the concept of forking WMF should get serious
consideration. That intersects a bit awkwardly with the ED transition, and
I'm thinking that the best way to get those two processes to work together
is to have the forking discussion (at least in the short term) happen first
so that we know what we're looking for in the ED transition. I'm open to
hearing other ideas; maybe Gayle could share her thoughts so I'm pinging
her.
Regards,
Pine
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On 17 April 2016 at 21:52, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But recent discussions have included the
possibility of spinning off
components of WMF and/or a breakup of the WMF organization, partly as a
way
to mitigate the systemic risk from a
dysfunctional or underperforming
WMF.
So, should we be looking for an ED with the
expectation that he or she
will
manage an organization with 250+ employees, or
should we look for someone
who has experience with spinoffs and/or breakups?
There has been a small amount of discussion of a vaguely-defined,
hypothetical split, which has involved only a handful of people. The
idea has not been tested with the wider community, much less developed
as a formal proposal. That's not a good basis on which to appoint an
ED.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
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>