svetlana wrote:
The whole of your post suggests that the fundraising folks are deaf. Your last sentence doesn't make you more to the point. This makes you really unapproachable and puts the fundraising folks into harder position as they have to cry, beg pardon and spend time apologizing -- as if they had killed a kitten -- before they can approach you and ask for help.
On one side, such hostile approach is something you might feel these folks deserve for their awful mistakes. You might feel that you're being more clear about it - but clarity doesn't really have to come at the cost of shaming and not having made a single move toward changing the situation. We are all learning.
I think you're being unreasonable here. Ryan pointed to specific examples of problems with (i.e., negative comments about) the donation advertisements. This isn't a hostile approach, it's examining and analyzing evidence in order to reach an informed conclusion.
What you should actually be upset about is the lack of transparency regarding fundraising statistics. Ryan very politely asked for these statistics and the response was essentially "we've got higher priorities right now," which of course is complete rubbish. Of course we're keeping detailed logs of incoming donations, there's no extra burden there. And of course people are e-mailing internally and creating internal reports. But this information isn't being shared and we really must address this.
Nobody is suggesting that the fundraising team kills small furry animals and I think everyone involved in this discussion (including and perhaps especially those who are paid or were paid by donations) recognizes the thankless and stressful job that the fundraising team has. But in the face of active damage to Wikimedia's brand and reputation, after repeated and lengthy discussions about the issues with obnoxious, misleading, and obtrusive donation advertising, it's unsurprising that people are annoyed.
MZMcBride