Dear Brion, your comments in this thread were wonderfully clear. Thank you. On Feb 26, 2016 8:15 PM, "Brion Vibber" bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just a quick note:
- some of the big staff conversations are indeed being very carefully
note-taken or recorded internally. We are being very careful to plan and communicate how open they will be ahead of time and keep them both honest and not scary. I would not expect them to be made public (the ones made so far will definitely not because we already told people they were private to staff, and people have to be able to trust us on this stuff.)
- There is also a big need for private conversations, which means many/most
of these talks won't be recorded and definitely would not be made public in detail. Many won't feel comfortable in a recorded conversation. Many still won't feel comfortable in a large group that's not recorded. Many still won't feel comfortable in a small group conversation. And others still won't feel comfortable opening up in a 1:1 private conversation with someone in a power position at their employer.
- it's also important to remember that people are individuals and have
different experiences. Not everyone interprets or experiences the same events or in the same way. Some staff members are not comfortable expressing their experiences and feelings because they feel different from those speaking more loudly, or found the recent internal and public discussions more directly traumatic to themselves than what they experienced during the previous administration -- in which case a more private environment helps avoid the concern about feeling out of lock step or being treated as an ignorant outsider for not having shared the same issue.
I think it's very important to have all of those levels of conversations, and distill and spread around the core issues, fears, hopes in a way that's safe, fair, and useful. And honestly I'd prioritize safe and fair over useful in some respects.
Totally agree that facilitated conversations can be useful. There's at least some informal stuff going on but I hope we have some more purpose-designed facilitated discussions too.
And I think some of us *would* love to have public talks about making things better -- such as those of us posting here. But that's going to be very distinct from what I think we're looking at this week.
-- brion On Feb 26, 2016 4:13 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a
record
of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making
them
all public is not desirable.
Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a
skilled
professional facilitator or mediator, who has no stake in the outcome,
can
be an incredibly helpful in getting the maximum benefit from difficult discussions. I hope that the WMF has considered hiring such a person for Jimmy's visit, and to address any number of other aspects of the present challenges.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy
can
be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting, video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that
the
transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF
to
exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the
videos
could be widely accessible inside of WMF. I think that the videos
would
be
instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and
other
Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons
learned
and opportunities for organizational development.
Pine
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com
wrote:
I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for
people
new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of
voices
and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which
ones
are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what,
with
little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain
no
matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.
If
you
don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it
matters,
you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... ambiguous even in the best of times.
So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit
to
San
Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by
more
visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get
a
better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people
have,
so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim
ED,
and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.
Jimmy,
A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know; stopped clocks and all that).
A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5 basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of
the
problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal
to
give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed, some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or "chronic complainers" were eminently justified.
When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only
the
concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.
I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming
that
it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to
use,
within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015.
I
of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.
(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)
[0]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2...
[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe