On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
Okay, so from my perspective, here's where we are:
The WMF staff cares about the projects and we respect the work that they
do [snip] but this is what a thread
like the ones we've had recently fosters: Damned if you do, damned if
you
don't.
I think this is totally true and needs to be remembered. Working with the community shouldn't be a frustrating experience. [Or maybe it's just that long-term community members have gotten inured to a certain level of frustration and therefore don't even notice anymore? I can't tell].
Personally, I expect that the folks that work for the WMF understand this concept and work within the confines of it. In any environment in which you invest your time, energy, and emotion this is just another run of the mill thing. On the other hand, internally while still collected your brain is still screaming "I get it, shut up." Naturally it is inappropriate to actually say that, and you have to swallow that very bitter pill. Doesn't mean you can't explain or defend yourself, which they are expected to do as part of the job (and by they, I mean any person with "advanced permissions" on WMF projects and life in general).
From my position, like the commons deletion debate, there is a time to act
and then discuss, and other times vice versa. Doing this in the wrong order will cause...well, this. As Mike tried to point out in an earlier thread about the commons deletions, sort out that first and THEN talk about Jimbo's role and how the process was managed. Something out of process occured, so we need to rectify what the issue was first, and then move on to the theoretical debate.
Again, speaking only for myself, the communications break-downs occur when you want to talk about something while feeling passionately about it. In reality, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
-- Keegan