On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
First, many staff members feel that the accomplishments you claim under "we" are not attributable to you.
I assumed that's why she used the word "we". I took it that she was taking some credit for pushing some of the initiatives, but not that she was taking credit for all of the results.
Complaints about lack of strategy and confusing management have come from all levels of the staff; the implication that people who failed to be promoted might be behind discontent seems not to hold water.
I didn't see any such implication when I read it. If it is/was implied, I would agree with your disagreement.
As to shutting down pet projects to improve focus, it's unclear what
projects you refer to.
Agreed.
Fundamentally we agree that we must improve tech. But the tech side of the organization, based on my conversations with other employees including managers, does not seem to have benefited from your tenure -- ops laregely manages itself, while the other sections get occasionally surprised by a reorg. We've still not fully recovered from the 2015 reorg and Damon's appearance and disappearance.
The process that led to the 2015 reorg was horrible. And the current structure is far from perfect. But I think the structure of the tech departments of the WMF after the re-org is, overall, much more effective than it was before the re-org. I say that having only experienced the old structure for a couple months, so my perspective is limited.
The tech parts of the org seem to have more of a sense of accountability now, with more of a focus on outcomes, and costs, than before. Again, it's far from perfect, but those seem like healthy improvements, as part of an organization maturing. I know a lot of techies will disagree (strongly!), as they prefer more of a "hacker" culture, and they feel we are becoming too "corporate". I would like to see us settle in at a happy medium, avoiding either extreme.
I think those are a couple ways in which the tech org *has* benefited from Lila's tenure. It's very possible that those benefits are overshadowed by other problems. But I think anyone who sees absolutely zero improvements either has clouded judgment, or isn't paying attention. I would prefer to judge each action and decision (by anyone) on its own merits, attempting to avoid the "halo effect/horns effect"[1].
If your contention is that tech supports you as a silent majority, I have strong doubts that this is the case.
I didn't see any indication that this was being asserted. If it is/was being asserted, I would agree with your doubts.
Recognizing that change *is* painful and difficult is valuable. I think people generally tend to underestimate that pain, and I think that has happened here. It's not clear how much of the pain we are experiencing is due to "change", and how much is due to other causes. I'm pretty sure change itself is a non-zero (and underestimated) component, but obviously it doesn't account for anywhere near 100% either.
For me, this essay as a whole is a welcome (and probably long overdue) expression of Lila's vision for where she wants to take the WMF, and why. Perhaps I'm naive, but I am assuming good faith here. Understanding Lila's tech focus is important, since that has been a point of contention with many people. Whether that vision is optimal for the org is debatable, of course.
Kevin