Hey DJ
These seem like reasonable concerns and I am glad you and others are raising them. I hope you continue to do so. We’re all getting better at working together and it is clear that the foundation has made mistakes in the past, so it is right and good to hold us accountable. I mean that sincerely.
I’ve heard a few preliminary answers offered. As I see it, it seems like rather than waiting to get everything perfect (and likely with a bit of spin), these people are trying to communicate what they know when they know it. I support them for doing so and hope that all of us in the foundation continue in this direction. But there is a challenge to this approach also… when you share early, you might not yet have all of the answers. Sometimes, but not always, mutual disclosure may require some patience while we all muddle through and arrive at shared understanding.
I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve heard them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the most information is on vacation. As someone who has seen employees go through considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive team is working to establish some cultural standards around supporting vacations. We want people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and sometimes that can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their vacations well in advance and may not know that something tricky will come up. Just so you understand one bias I bring to this conversation.
Last, but not least, it’s not always as easy as it seems. This communication thing is hard, especially when people are involved. Sometimes there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t know whether we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts. The truth is that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial communication that aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.
I’m wondering if we can grant their two requests, can we wait for a return from vacation and a clarification of some kind will follow?
Next time I see you, I hope we can have a beer and argue about something something.
Warmly, /a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman < d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, The Interactive Team in Discovery is in the process of putting its work
on
pause. The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable
and
maintainable state. Currently, work on new features is on hold. It is not yet known what the timeline is for this transition to a paused state, or whether there will
be
further deployments of features that have already been completed. I will update this list when there is more information. Thanks, Dan -- Dan Garry Lead Product Manager, Discovery Wikimedia Foundation
So it seems all work on Maps, Graphs and other interactive features is going to be halted pretty soon. I was directed at this notification after a Maps ticket mentioned:
With the team winding down
To which I asked:
Why is the team winding down ?
To which Dan Garry responded:
There were expectations that were set regarding things such as team
goals,
working collaboratively with stakeholders, and advance notice to communities, that were repeatedly not met by the team.
And he pointed me to this discovery mailing list announcement, which well isn't really an explanation as much as a statement on the effect that 'winding down' will have.
My interpretation of the information up to here was: "we are dissolving this team because it didn't perform and by posting to discovery mailing list we did the minimal effort required to notify people, but lets hope nobody notices what the notification really means" At the same time Dan's words are a rather hefty review on the performance of a team, which I'm not used to seeing from WMF. Refreshing, but unusual.
This annoys me and I answer:
1: I'd expect this to be announced on wikimedia-l, if we start a team we always seem more than anxious to do so. 2: I'd like some details. I thought we had left behind all the "let's try and hide this and hope no one notices it"-shit in 2016. 3: Thank you team ! You did some great work, and it was more productive and groundbreaking than many other teams have been able to do in 5 years.
A bit hyperbolic on all fronts, I admit.
To which Dan responds with:
I am not the person who made this decision. I do not know all of the reasons it was made. The person who made the decision is on vacation for the next few weeks. I am trying my best to communicate as much as I can
in
her absence, which is why I made a public announcement of all that I know now rather than waiting weeks for my manager to return. I am afraid that some patience is required until Katie gets back from vacation.
So now Dan doesn't know enough to be able to discuss this, even though he gave a rather destructive team review earlier.
1: This is exactly the kind of communication that 'the community' keeps complaining about. Reactive instead of proactive. Evasive instead of transparent. Now volunteers need to spend time to figure out what is happening here ? This has cost me over 3 hours today. I would have liked to have spent that time differently. 2: It shouldn't matter that Katie is on holidays, I'd assume/hope someone takes over her duties while she is away (Likely Dan himself and/or Wes Moran). Providing information on topics like this shouldn't have to wait until someone returns from a (likely well deserved) holiday. 3: Why do I have to write this email ? It's really not that hard: Make a decision, explain it.
DJ _______________________________________________ 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