We should start talking about Something.
Something is the raising issue of our movement. Its properties are not yet known, but all of us feel the consequences of Something.
To tackle the problem, we should define it, first. Yes, we know it's called Something, but besides the name, we know just a little bit more. So, I ask you to help me define Something. Crowdsourcing is the term defined thanks to our movement and I am sure we are capable to do so. All of us have a little piece of knowledge about Something and we could compile those pieces to create a clear picture.
My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years. However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.
I am not able to understand what's the difference between the Time of Something (ToS, not to be confused with TOS, Star Trek, The Original Series) and the Time before Something (TbS, not to be confused with tbs, ISO 639-3 code for Tanguat language).
I don't see any particular difference, except I think Board is not making mistakes it made previously. (To be fair, it's not that big achievement, as "mistakes" are not a final set.)
What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the consequences of that dynamics.
However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the basic concepts of Something.
But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery of Something.
John: I hope we can have an open discussion. (: I feel that NDAs may be making bad situations worse. There are good reasons to keep some things confidential, but I think that more openness and transparency would be helpful in regards to the WMF board in particular.
Milos: thank you. Yesterday I wrote a long list of areas in which there are problems and weaknesses throughout the Wikimedia universe. The length of the list was so depressing that I decided to keep it to myself. In a way, I'm glad that someone is thinking along similar lines. I'm about to depart Wikimedia-l for several hours; I'll leave with these thoughts:
1. Lila is talking about a strategy update: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2... My confidence in WMF-led strategy processes is weak at this moment in time, although I hope for the best. Perhaps we can all use this as an opportunity to address Something. Perhaps parallel to this, we in the community should have our own discussion about Something and what we would like for our own strategy.
2. WikiQuote of the day:
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien, in "The Fellowship of the Ring"
To brighter days,
Pine
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:56 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Something is covered in NDAs.
-- John _______________________________________________ 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
On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Something is covered in NDAs.
I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And they weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside of the movement.
It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA
Thyge
2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Something is covered in NDAs.
I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And they weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside of the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2])
A.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Ind...
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA
Thyge
2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Something is covered in NDAs.
I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And
they
weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position inside
of
the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Let us have our movement new year's resolution be for an acronym-free 2016!
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2])
A.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Ind...
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDA
Thyge
2016-01-03 10:02 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Jan 3, 2016 09:56, "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Something is covered in NDAs.
I heard quite general notes, that they couldn't be inside of NDAs. And
they
weren't personal, but related to the WMF and WMF leading position
inside
of
the movement. _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2])
(my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not Pine. I should have looked it up.)
A.
Thanks, Bartov - and I second the wish from Pharos.
Thyge
2016-01-03 20:22 GMT+01:00 Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2])
(my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not Pine. I should have looked it up.)
A. _______________________________________________ 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
Milos Rancic wrote:
My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years. However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.
[...]
What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the consequences of that dynamics.
However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the basic concepts of Something.
But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery of Something.
Poe's law dictates that this thread may or may not be taken at face value. I'll choose the former. For many people, the Something is Lila. The buck has to stop somewhere and as noted on Meta-Wiki and elsewhere, since her accession to the Executive Director position, there has been a very high level of shake-up at the Wikimedia Foundation. Some points of reference, looking at the "Staff and contractors" page:
* As of 2014-01-01: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/94980
* As of 2015-01-01: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/100668
* As of 2016-01-01: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/104377
No more Sue, no more Erik, no more many, many others. With the exception of Geoff, we have a full turnover of the leadership/executive/whatever team of the Wikimedia Foundation. This, in addition to two vacancies for Chief Technology and Chief Financial Officers, along with a recent-ish massive re-organization of the engineering team that ruffled feathers.
I like to remind people that Sue's start as Executive Director wasn't exactly drama-free, but at no point in her tenure can I remember anyone, inside or outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, suggesting holding a vote of no confidence for her. The same hasn't been true of Lila, unfortunately.
I personally am still in the "wait and see" camp regarding the past two years at the Wikimedia Foundation. But my personal views are less relevant if public confidence among nearly everyone else is non-existent.
All that said, the underlying issue probably rests more with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees itself than with its Executive Director.
We return, yet again, to this post by David Gerard: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=630. The Executive Director's role is to implement and execute on the organization's goals. The organization's goals are ultimately set by the Board of Trustees. Rather than tackling the hard problem of what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to accomplish over the next 1, 3, and 5 years, the Board has been instead concerning itself with trying to maintain secrecy (lovingly branded as confidentiality) and hierarchy, as it fumbles forward. Quite literally, the Wikimedia (Foundation) Strategic Plan expired at the end of 2015 and the efforts to write a new plan have been horribly haphazard, late, and lacking.
It's possible that the secrecy is hiding all of the work taking place in the background, with people diligently studying the past five years, associated goals, and figuring out what went wrong and what went right. But the suspicion I have, as a somewhat-informed observer, is that the high-level vision for what comes next for the Wikimedia Foundation is missing. And that's what driving the low morale and high discomfort.
Perhaps ironically, this tumult and anxiety comes at a time when there's so much to be excited about in the tech space. We have all kinds of new tools: arbitrary Wikidata access, graphing/visualization libraries, more powerful transclusion, Scribunto/Lua modules, VisualEditor, etc., along with steady performance and operations improvements that have made the sites faster and securer to load and more enjoyable to use. There are reasons to be hopeful about the next few years, but also reasons to be concerned. It's unclear what the precise ratio is currently.
Thyge wrote:
It seams that NDA could by anything (1). Which one is something?
Wrong wiki. ;-) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NDA has the answer.
Asaf Bartov wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement[1]
(and while we're at it, the acronym IEP opaquely deployed by Pine in the other thread was the India Education Program[2])
(my mistake: it was Kevin Gorman who used it, not Pine. I should have looked it up.)
I kind of skimmed over "IEP" and half of me assumed it was related to Individual Engagement Grants (IEG). Luckily Meta-Wiki again comes to the rescue: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IEP and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IEG. Maybe we should start selling decoder rings.
Acronyms and abbreviations are fine, especially in a long document, but at minimum the first reference should always be spelled out.
MZMcBride
Blind, impotent rage isn't helpful, neither are conjectures about the abstract and nebulous nature of "something".
Let's try and remember, this is the same pattern as every other last time, most people commenting here are in agreement, this was wrong or at the least, this was handled poorly, and as usual, there is little to no official communication from the other side. The pitchforks are ready, the mob is assembled but the castle is empty, as usual.
I'm not sure why we keep perpetuating this us vs them mentality. Whether its the action of singular staff member or the board or large decision by the executive, the end result is always the same and I'm not sure we are making any progress over the years. Just pushing this boulder up the hill to watch it roll down every few months.
It is irrelevant what the disagreement was over with James. It is healthy for consensus building, and if james' views or actions were so radical that it required his immediate removal from the board - maybe that's what the board needed in it entrenched ways, isolated from what is relevant. I am not sure what the board is trying to maintain in their silence - beyond this expectation to be professional and secretive and respect some sort of group cohesion or collective authority - the legal department isn't helping the situation either, peppering it with NDAs and gag order/requests.
The prepared and semi-prepared statements from the two board members aren't really assuring or remotely revealing of anything. So I guess, we are left to conjectures and conspiracies, extrapolating theories from morsels of information. This has been a sad effort from the board and the communication need for all parties involved.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
No more Sue, no more Erik, no more many, many others. With the exception of Geoff, we have a full turnover of the leadership/executive/whatever team of the Wikimedia Foundation. This, in addition to two vacancies for Chief Technology and Chief Financial Officers, along with a recent-ish massive re-organization of the engineering team that ruffled feathers.
I think you are missing some of the context to support your narrative. Sue's departure was the precondition for Lila's arrival and the new leadership. Erik also, would be seen as an extension of the same executive body that had to be refactored. You mention Geoff, but he was brought on to replace someone else in that position(Mike), by Sue. I count several of the same individuals still around - off the top of my head, Asaf, Siko, James, Megan, Brion, Tomasz, and many more are still around. A large majority of the WMF staff just never interacted with the community, and there were always new staff members around, so it really doesn't feel all that different. I would also argue the average employment length for a wfm employee under Sue wasn't any better. There were a lot of staff changes that happened quietly and frequently. There was also a clique that formed that moved around titles - I see less of that now. The open positions on staff aren't really evidence of anything in particular beyond a suitable hire hasn't been located, given how important those two positions are I would rather they err on the side of caution.
I assume bringing in a new executive and new leadership for an organisation means change. In fact, I'd be more surprised if there weren't these changes and Lila was working with the same people doing the exact same things as Sue. Change in this case is evident, whether that change is for good or not - remains to be seen - something we agree on.
I like to remind people that Sue's start as Executive Director wasn't exactly drama-free, but at no point in her tenure can I remember anyone, inside or outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, suggesting holding a vote of no confidence for her. The same hasn't been true of Lila, unfortunately.
I would disagree, and I would also point out that there isn't a no confidence vote for Lila now either. This is strictly about the board and its conduct, this might be among the first few times the focus is shifting to Lila without even her mention by any of the parties involved. For historical accuracy, I would point you to the 2012 fundraising debate, the superprotect debacle, and a lot of contentious discussion over the years that questioned Sue's leadership on a regular basis.
It's possible that the secrecy is hiding all of the work taking place in
the background, with people diligently studying the past five years, associated goals, and figuring out what went wrong and what went right. But the suspicion I have, as a somewhat-informed observer, is that the high-level vision for what comes next for the Wikimedia Foundation is missing. And that's what driving the low morale and high discomfort.
As another somewhat-informed observer, I would assure you that a high-level vision for what comes next for WMF was ALWAYS missing. Just see the original strategic plan from boots on the ground in the "global south" to payment processing/chapter fundraising debate moving to narrowing focus to myriads of development efforts that were just abandoned and never replaced with a cohesive strategy. For example, there was a global dev. dept. at some point, it was gutted a long time ago but everyone involved was refactored in other positions - one would argue there might be little to no skill or experience overlap between overseeing a "boots on the ground" strategy in MENA region(Or Brazil and India) to handling grants from SF, and same could be said for a lot of other departments and position shuffling over the years, but I digress.
One can also argue, the high level vision could in part come from the board. They certainly might have had a vision in mind when they replaced Sue. But I highly doubt there ever was, and this is the flat circle perpetuating itself - who is leading whom?
Perhaps ironically, this tumult and anxiety comes at a time when there's so much to be excited about in the tech space. We have all kinds of new tools: arbitrary Wikidata access, graphing/visualization libraries, more powerful transclusion, Scribunto/Lua modules, VisualEditor, etc., along with steady performance and operations improvements that have made the sites faster and securer to load and more enjoyable to use. There are reasons to be hopeful about the next few years, but also reasons to be concerned. It's unclear what the precise ratio is currently.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't put at least some of that as a win for Lila?
That is not to say Lila has my vote of confidence on all issues, I have my disappointments too. But I have a simple measure that I follow, I check Lila's talk page (Last edited by her on 2 Jan) to see how the conversation is going there. It sounds stupid, but really I've seen more board members and executives lose sight of what is relevant when they shut the world around them and stop communicating on wiki. She is listening to the raw feedback, even when it is constantly negative. There is no alternative to unadulterated feedback - the board needs a good dose of that.
Regards Theo
On 2016-01-04 00:50, Theo10011 wrote:
I'm not sure why we keep perpetuating this us vs them mentality. Whether its the action of singular staff member or the board or large decision by the executive, the end result is always the same and I'm not sure we are making any progress over the years. Just pushing this boulder up the hill to watch it roll down every few months.
What do you suggest? To amend bylaws and to abolish the Board? Then say so.
Cheers Yaroslav
So Signpost discovered what is Something. (I didn't follow all the threads, but I suppose it's been written in some of them.)
From my perspective and according to some anecdotal data I have, I would
suggest WMF staff and C-level management to start talking with each other.
I can confirm that at least in one case it turned out that fears had no basis in reality. But I was a bit surprised that I was the best informed person inside of the triangle. On Jan 3, 2016 09:41, "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
We should start talking about Something.
Something is the raising issue of our movement. Its properties are not yet known, but all of us feel the consequences of Something.
To tackle the problem, we should define it, first. Yes, we know it's called Something, but besides the name, we know just a little bit more. So, I ask you to help me define Something. Crowdsourcing is the term defined thanks to our movement and I am sure we are capable to do so. All of us have a little piece of knowledge about Something and we could compile those pieces to create a clear picture.
My knowledge about Something is very obscure. From occasional discussions with some of WMF employees, I know that "Something is wrong". I am quite serious about that. I got impression that employees are not content with the Board decisions during the recent years. However, I couldn't define quite well the matter of that discontent.
I am not able to understand what's the difference between the Time of Something (ToS, not to be confused with TOS, Star Trek, The Original Series) and the Time before Something (TbS, not to be confused with tbs, ISO 639-3 code for Tanguat language).
I don't see any particular difference, except I think Board is not making mistakes it made previously. (To be fair, it's not that big achievement, as "mistakes" are not a final set.)
What I do see are the consequences of Something: Something creates particular dynamics inside of the core of our movement and we feel the consequences of that dynamics.
However, I am living in a countryside of Wikimedia movement, far away from our capital, Bay Area. Thus, I admit I am not just not that well informed, but I am also probably not that capable to understand the basic concepts of Something.
But I am sure there are some of you capable to fathom the deep mystery of Something.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org