On 8/14/05 8:48 AM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
I think this is not really where the problem lies.
This isn't about
Erik being micromanaged, it is about him responding to questions and
very mild criticism by accusing people of micromanaging and suggesting
Anthere resign from the board.
That is not the wiki way of trust and co-operation.
I agree completely that we should reward people for boldness, and that
we can not and should not micromanage. I think having a discussion
about the exact parameters of that can be worthwhile, but I also do not
think it is particularly relevant to this particular case. The problem
as I see it is unprofessionalism in terms of cutting off such a
discussion by turning it instantly to questions of who should resign.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I've been lurking here for a while, haven't edited in a while because of
some life changes and an elevated level of Wiki-stress but conversations
like this one that's been bantering about for days is one of the reasons
I've gone on hiatus. When it penetrates to the upper-most levels it makes
you think.
Jimmy, I don't know if you can consider yourself as objective on this
because if you see Anthere's treatise in response to Erik's report as "mild
criticism" I shudder to think of what severe criticism would be. In her
Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:52:38 (UTC) email she:
1) Chided Erik in a manner I thought was very condescending: "You were
supposed not (sic)" to do this, "you were supposed not" to do that.
2) Immediately after the condescension launched into the "very serious
problem" of the definition of Erik's role (i.e. "I don't like how
you're
doing your job, let's change it)
3) Finally, in this email it was Anthere who made the first shot across the
bow regarding who should resign or be fired:
Ultimately, we meet two problems, first, some
decisions will be forced
on the board, because it is embarassing to admit an officer pushed a
decision with a partner or a sponsor which is not actually supported.
Another outcome is that we have to dismiss you in public, or in front of
the partner or sponsor.
Both are equally embarassing (for you, for us, for the organisation) and
non constructive outcome.
In one email we have rebuke of what he did, a suggestion he needs to have
his job changed and then allusion to being "dismissed in public" - I believe
those would all fall under the definition of stern criticism and certainly
micro-management. As an outsider, given the rather innocuous nature of the
exchange before Anthere's treatise I would have to say she came loaded for
bear on this one.
Now I spent some time in public service which is a bit similar to the
Foundation now and there's things you do in public and things that you
don't. As a board member criticizing one of your officers point blank in
public puts egg on that officer's face and makes your organization look like
it engages in open infighting. I would have suggested a more discrete
method of discourse on this up front. Now, if that doesn't settle things,
by all means, gore each other in public but as it stands this entire
exchange and the constant back and forth makes the organization look bad. I
think some need to take a step back, a deep breath, ask themselves exactly
what this disagreement is regarding in the first place and try to go from
there.
--Guy (en User:Wgfinley)