Dear Brion, your comments in this thread were wonderfully clear. Thank you.
On Feb 26, 2016 8:15 PM, "Brion Vibber" <bvibber(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales(a)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%…
> > [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(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/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>