Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I do recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers three times to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas