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
Hello everyone,
We introduced this upcoming change last week[1] on the Discovery list. At the time, we didn’t have the full details to share, but wanted to let people directly engaging with that team know that some changes were being planned. We were originally going to share more details once they were finalized. However, I realized after reading the post from Derk-Jan that we should share the information we have now.
The work of the Interactive team[2], a sub-team within the team focused on Maps and Graphs, will be temporarily paused beginning this quarter. These efforts are important, and the Product Department is committed to continuing them. We expect to fulfill our Annual Plan commitments related to the Interactive team’s work, and are currently determining how best to make this transition. But we need to take some time to determine the best path forward for this team within Discovery.
We’ll communicate more broadly about the future of this work as the situation evolves. Until then, we are going to review current bugs and tasks that were committed to in the Annual Plan, as well as requests in the community wishlist, and decide when and how to proceed.
We welcome questions and conversation, but have to ask some patience as some members of the team are out of office at the moment. Please direct further questions on the topic to the Discovery list.[3]
Thanks, Wes VP of Product, Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/discovery/2017-January/001421.html
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Interactive_Team
[3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:26 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
Dear Wes et. al.,
Thank you for quickly providing some further information.
We at the Signpost sometimes have unique opportunities for insight into what is resonating in the Wikimedia community. Our readership is of course not a statistically representative sample, but I do believe it's an important one. With that in mind, two features that I believe came out of the Interactive Team have, in recent weeks, generated a great deal more enthusiasm than we're used to seeing. (See metrics below.)
With that in mind, I'd like to underscore what Derk-Jan said. When the WMF manages to generate strong enthusiasm through its software offerings, it seems natural that an action that impacts that team might draw some concern, from beyond the reach of the relatively tech-focused Discovery email list.
-Pete -- Pete Forsyth Editor in Chief, The Signpost http://enwp.org/WP:Signpost
Signpost story: * 1,060 page views on our story (lead story on a page that also covered the Developer Summit and the Community Wishlist) https://tools.wmflabs.org/page views/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent= user&start=2017-01-17&end=2017-01-23&pages=Wikipedia: Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-01-17/Technology_report (Not far behind our main "News and Notes" section, at 1337 page views; compare to only 767 views on the previous Tech Report in its first 7 days)
On Twitter: * 19 retweets, 13 likes, and some substantive discussion about data storage location: https://twitter.com/PeteForsyth/status/821523405287530496 (This is a strong performer relative to most of my personal tweets and most tweets from @wikisignpost)
In the Wikipedia Weekly group on Facebook: * 20 likes and a couple strong endorsements in comment thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1208201305894365/ * Facebook reports to me that the above link reached 1,098 people, 326 of whom watched the video (extremely strong performance relative to my other posts) * 31 likes, some positive comments, and some substantive design discussion relating to GeoHack features: https://www.facebook .com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1210565832324579/ (My sense is, this is a fairly strong performance relative to other WW posts, but I don't track the numbers from this group closely)
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
We introduced this upcoming change last week[1] on the Discovery list. At the time, we didn’t have the full details to share, but wanted to let people directly engaging with that team know that some changes were being planned. We were originally going to share more details once they were finalized. However, I realized after reading the post from Derk-Jan that we should share the information we have now.
The work of the Interactive team[2], a sub-team within the team focused on Maps and Graphs, will be temporarily paused beginning this quarter. These efforts are important, and the Product Department is committed to continuing them. We expect to fulfill our Annual Plan commitments related to the Interactive team’s work, and are currently determining how best to make this transition. But we need to take some time to determine the best path forward for this team within Discovery.
We’ll communicate more broadly about the future of this work as the situation evolves. Until then, we are going to review current bugs and tasks that were committed to in the Annual Plan, as well as requests in the community wishlist, and decide when and how to proceed.
We welcome questions and conversation, but have to ask some patience as some members of the team are out of office at the moment. Please direct further questions on the topic to the Discovery list.[3]
Thanks, Wes VP of Product, Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/discovery/2017- January/001421.html
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Interactive_Team
[3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:26 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Wes,
For future reference, one suggestion that I would make is that decision-makers should be available to answer questions at the time that an announcement is made. Otherwise their absence can put many people in difficult positions (both staff and community) with limited information and needing to wait potentially long periods of time before getting definitive answers, which can be both frustrating and costly.
I think it was good to put this announcement on the Discovery list; sharing it more broadly would have made sense given the impact to others' workflows. I realize that we have so many communications channels that it's not always clear what scope should be assigned to various communications, and would encourage thinking about that in the context of improving WMF communication in general.
Pine
I find all this a little disconcerting.
The "Interactive Team" was making significant progress. Maps have been a great success and prevented a near blow up over at Wikivoyage as they solved a critical issue just as it was noticed. The new graphing tools were getting really good (with a bunch of us waiting patiently for them to become more widely avaliable / easily usable).
From page 39 of our reader survey from 2015 "rich content" such as what
that team was building was second only to "apps and mobile" as the most desired features. In that survey while "search features" ranked 13th with about three times as many of our users supporting further work on "rich content".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Community_Consultation_o...
Best James
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Wes,
For future reference, one suggestion that I would make is that decision-makers should be available to answer questions at the time that an announcement is made. Otherwise their absence can put many people in difficult positions (both staff and community) with limited information and needing to wait potentially long periods of time before getting definitive answers, which can be both frustrating and costly.
I think it was good to put this announcement on the Discovery list; sharing it more broadly would have made sense given the impact to others' workflows. I realize that we have so many communications channels that it's not always clear what scope should be assigned to various communications, and would encourage thinking about that in the context of improving WMF communication in general.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hello,
I do not know the situation with the Interactive Team but among other things, there is a wiki community request for better communication about projects. I would like to share something positive that already happens, and which is an opportunity for better communication going forward.
I happen to live in New York City, and one of the developers on this team happens to live here also.
Yuri Astrakhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yurik
In NYC in the last year we have 1-2 administrative meetups a month for people to talk about coordinating Wikimedia projects. Yuri has presented at several of these local meetups to 200+ people total in the past few months. He is a great speaker who pleases audiences of developers, and audiences of general Wikipedians, and audiences of people who come to Wikipedia meetups without ever having edited any wiki before. Among others, he works on the projects mentioned in this email thread -
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph
I cannot speak to the entire challenge of improving communication among WMF developers, the regular Wiki community like subscribers to this list, people who request better on-wiki documentation, and the general public, but I can say that I have felt that there was some loss when someone like Yuri is so personable, involved, and talented as a speaker and yet has limited opportunity to be heard. He is great in person, and when I hear him, I wish his presentations could be recorded and shared. Here is one attempt that we in NYC made to record him on Wikipedia Day, 15 January. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Day_NYC_Jan_15_2017_-_04_ Multimedia_-_Tech_Panel.ogg
If the presentations which people like Yuri already make were recorded and better circulated, then perhaps some problems related to lack of communication would be lessened.
I think there is some demand in the wiki community for more access to time in front of a camera to give presentations. NYC has the privilege of getting to hear a lot of great speakers in person. Globally at local meetups everywhere and even at Wikimania events, many talented people put a lot of labor and insight into the presentations they do. Usually those presentations do not persist beyond the live performance. When the presentation is video recorded, it usually has low quality audio and video that is not of the standard that many people expect from YouTube and other similar sites, and I think that the challenge of producing good video is more of a barrier to communication than lack of great presenters with interesting things to say. Encouraging people to do video presentations might not be the solution to communication challenges, but when there is someone who puts the work into making a great in-person presentation, then I wish it were easier to record and share it. I have not been satisfied with most of the wiki-related recordings produced, except for the most professional ones made with professional equipment and editing. I wish that there could be more video support getting more interviews and updates from more people at wiki events around the world.
I have been very pleased with the quality of in-person, in NYC presentations that Yuri has shared about maps and graphs. I think that he and others like him would use opportunities to be interviewed and better presented in wiki community media, and I think that the community wants better in-community media coverage. I feel grateful to have heard Yuri in my own city and the WMF should be glad to have someone who is a developer and such a great speaker.
yours,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
Hello,
I have just been informed that Yuri is no longer with the WMF. I was not aware. I think he might have left within the past 10 days, or perhaps I am just way out of touch.
Whatever the case - that is all the more reason to seize the moment! Brilliant people come and go in the wiki community, and when they are gone, it becomes more difficult to access the institutional knowledge they had. Catch people when they are presenting!
Yuri is a Wikipedian to the core and I expect him to be around as a volunteer, but still - I wish it were easier for more people to present their stories more often in more attractive formats, whether video, interviews, or anything else that has a human element of reporting in it.
yours,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I do not know the situation with the Interactive Team but among other things, there is a wiki community request for better communication about projects. I would like to share something positive that already happens, and which is an opportunity for better communication going forward.
I happen to live in New York City, and one of the developers on this team happens to live here also.
Yuri Astrakhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yurik
In NYC in the last year we have 1-2 administrative meetups a month for people to talk about coordinating Wikimedia projects. Yuri has presented at several of these local meetups to 200+ people total in the past few months. He is a great speaker who pleases audiences of developers, and audiences of general Wikipedians, and audiences of people who come to Wikipedia meetups without ever having edited any wiki before. Among others, he works on the projects mentioned in this email thread -
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Maps https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph
I cannot speak to the entire challenge of improving communication among WMF developers, the regular Wiki community like subscribers to this list, people who request better on-wiki documentation, and the general public, but I can say that I have felt that there was some loss when someone like Yuri is so personable, involved, and talented as a speaker and yet has limited opportunity to be heard. He is great in person, and when I hear him, I wish his presentations could be recorded and shared. Here is one attempt that we in NYC made to record him on Wikipedia Day, 15 January. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Day_NYC_ Jan_15_2017_-_04_Multimedia_-_Tech_Panel.ogg
If the presentations which people like Yuri already make were recorded and better circulated, then perhaps some problems related to lack of communication would be lessened.
I think there is some demand in the wiki community for more access to time in front of a camera to give presentations. NYC has the privilege of getting to hear a lot of great speakers in person. Globally at local meetups everywhere and even at Wikimania events, many talented people put a lot of labor and insight into the presentations they do. Usually those presentations do not persist beyond the live performance. When the presentation is video recorded, it usually has low quality audio and video that is not of the standard that many people expect from YouTube and other similar sites, and I think that the challenge of producing good video is more of a barrier to communication than lack of great presenters with interesting things to say. Encouraging people to do video presentations might not be the solution to communication challenges, but when there is someone who puts the work into making a great in-person presentation, then I wish it were easier to record and share it. I have not been satisfied with most of the wiki-related recordings produced, except for the most professional ones made with professional equipment and editing. I wish that there could be more video support getting more interviews and updates from more people at wiki events around the world.
I have been very pleased with the quality of in-person, in NYC presentations that Yuri has shared about maps and graphs. I think that he and others like him would use opportunities to be interviewed and better presented in wiki community media, and I think that the community wants better in-community media coverage. I feel grateful to have heard Yuri in my own city and the WMF should be glad to have someone who is a developer and such a great speaker.
yours,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 <(206)%20801-0814> lane@bluerasberry.com
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face constraints. There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then, there are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on this. But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did anyone suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in this one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and allow for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
Anna,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right? If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex, and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an effort to make it grow or sustain.
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved on by then.
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face constraints. There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then, there are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on this. But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did anyone suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in this one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and allow for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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 Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex, and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service and what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers. But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause, have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still stands.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a [[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on this thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree is attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile to know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale that sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked of me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex, and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service and what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers. But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause, have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still stands.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a [[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…] 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. […]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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 Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on this thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree is attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile to know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale that sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked of me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known once more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations you want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and important thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are complex, and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm in a number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff) would like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight behind an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New Readers. But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause, have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during this period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or moved on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point still stands.
-Pete
-- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a
[[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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. […]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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/wik i/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 01/25/2017 09:52 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
:)
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
Ha! Maybe.
I haven't said it's unreasonable, and I'm not sure anybody else has, either. In fact, I think The DJ explicitly acknowledged some of the points in your initial message, and by my reading implicitly acknowledged others. I don't think anybody is singling out the "pause in explaining the pause" as unreasonable.
I've heard the request, and with all the considerations, sure, it seems reasonable enough. What I've tried to do is express what some of the costs of further delay are; but asserting costs is not the same thing as saying further delay is unreasonable. I read Pine as trying to put it in a broader context of problems that may be systemic; but I don't think that's the same as saying it's unreasonable, either. So, perhaps we're not all as far apart as it might appear?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
I'll have the karaoke machine ready!
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the community thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and Z. The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the second was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2) my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People who both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and far between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ, or anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to them with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm
in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff)
would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight
behind
an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause, have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during
this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or
moved
on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point
still
stands.
-Pete
-- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a
[[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where
his
[her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that
meets
the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…] > 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. > […] > I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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/wik i/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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is what, if anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and at a higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the community thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and Z. The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the second was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2)
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People who both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and far between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think
I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment
law
and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm
in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff)
would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight
behind
an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
Evaluation_Service>
and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to
pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during
this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or
moved
on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point
still
stands.
-Pete
-- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a
[[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where
his
[her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise.
In
theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and
then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that
meets
the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating
in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time
and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: > > […] >> 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. >> […] >> > I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- > ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- > ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that > employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should > not experience their time off as a period where his work > load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but > where colleagues will step in and take care of business. > Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team > should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but > be backed and explainable by others. > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
> >
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in this instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is what, if anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and at a higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team? Or was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out. 2)
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will continue on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food on the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
their
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message
on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James,
DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing
to
grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
think
I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if
full
preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not
be
readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
being
made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
known
once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment
law
and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me.
I
usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is
in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff)
would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight
behind
an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
Evaluation_Service>
and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to
pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not
be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or
moved
on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point
still
stands.
-Pete
-- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a
[[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
> wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. > > "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
where
his
> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
> > I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise.
In
> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face > constraints.
> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and
then,
> there
> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that
meets
> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work
on
> this.
> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor
did
> anyone
> suggest that it was generalized across the org. > > What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
> this
> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time
and
> allow
> for one person to return to work? > > Does that seem like a way to move forward? > > Warmly, > /a > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < > tim@tim-landscheidt.de > > wrote: > > Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >> >> […] >>> 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. >>> […] >>> >> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- >> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- >> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that >> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >> not experience their time off as a period where his work >> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but >> be backed and explainable by others. >> >> Tim >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 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>
>> >> > > -- > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - > Margaret > Fuller > > Anna Stillwell > Director of Culture > Wikimedia Foundation > 415.806.1536 > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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:
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/wik
i/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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Anna,
Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4. Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours, I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF managers who can actually make changes happen.
Pine
Speaking of communications, it would help if I would practice what I preach. Let me reword one problematic sentence: "Perhaps this could be the start of a "Community-WMF Communications office hour that could happen on a quarterly basis." Sorry for the extra email to fix that.
I'm not sure that one hour would be sufficient, or about the frequency of the meetings. Perhaps you and people who help you to plan these meetings could have some conversations about that.
Pine
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4. Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours, I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF managers who can actually make changes happen.
Pine
Hey Pine, Thanks for all of the good ideas. I'll reach out to you. As for the other suggestions, I appreciate them. I do a lot better and understand a lot more in 1:1 communication, so I'd prefer to interview people. /a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
Outside of the scope of this thread, I'd be glad to have a conversation about WMF-community communication in general. May I suggest making that a subject for an office hour at some future time? We'll likely need more than a single office hour to untangle all of the threads and make sure that everyone who wants to be heard is heard. A better time for me would be Q4. Perhaps this could be the start of a monthly "Community-WMF Communications office hour" that could happen on a quarterly basis. While I have too many other projects on my plate to also be a coordinator for these office hours, I do think that they could be very helpful if the conversations that they foster are used to implement changes that have significant backing from WMF managers who can actually make changes happen.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Anna
Thank you for that. In general an engagement works well when both, or all, parties have something to bring to the table and something to gain from the engagement (and certain other factors are in . So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the software roadmap would be effective. I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time. In this instance, there seems little that members of the community can do to help the WMF management handle a team problem that is taking place entirely within the WMF as an organisation. It may well be that there are people in the community with experience in managing software teams, but it seems unlikely that they will be in a position to give you the help you need on the time scales that you need it. Perhaps at some later date the senior leadership will want to do a lessons learned exercise and it might be that certain community members could help, but I would not use up the valuable bandwidth of staff and volunteers giving a blo-by-blow account of this particular incident. In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging by these events.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in this instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered on schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y, and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you our opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the WM movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement. People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I
did
understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
their
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message
on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James,
DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna, > > Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
think
I
> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if
full
> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not
be
> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
being
made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
known
once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to
me.
I
usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point
is
in
> tension with > another one: > > Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list > participants. > The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a
> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would
> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight
behind
> an > effort to make it grow or sustain. > > Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
Evaluation_Service>
and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to
pause,
have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may
not
be
> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved
or
moved
> on by then. > > I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still
stands.
-Pete > -- > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > /a [[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
> > > wrote: > > You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >> >> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
where
his
>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>> >> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face >> > constraints. > >> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and
then,
>> > there > >> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline
that
meets
>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>> > this. > >> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor
did
>> > anyone > >> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >> >> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>> > this > >> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>> > allow > >> for one person to return to work? >> >> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >> >> Warmly, >> /a >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >> >> wrote: >> >> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>> >>> […] >>>> 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. >>>> […] >>>> >>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- >>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- >>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that >>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but >>> be backed and explainable by others. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> 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>
>>> >>> >> >> -- >> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - >> Margaret >> Fuller >> >> Anna Stillwell >> Director of Culture >> Wikimedia Foundation >> 415.806.1536 >> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 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:
> 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/wik
i/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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna
Thank you for that. In general an engagement works well when both, or all, parties have something to bring to the table and something to gain from the engagement (and certain other factors are in .
Thank you for the principle to begin. That helps me orient. Of course it's obvious when you say it, but I hadn't thought about it in that light. Simple.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do. Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved *the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
In this instance, there seems little that members of the community can do to help the WMF management handle a team problem that is taking place entirely within the WMF as an organisation. It may well be that there are people in the community with experience in managing software teams, but it seems unlikely that they will be in a position to give you the help you need on the time scales that you need it.
Yes, I agree that it’s not a productive role for members of community. I engaged for slightly different reasons. I know recently we all lived through some struggles with transparency. They were tough times for all of us. I engaged because this "pause in the work" could potentially strike a deeper cord around transparency.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
Perhaps at some later date the senior leadership will want to do a lessons learned exercise and it might be that certain community members could help, but I would not use up the valuable bandwidth of staff and volunteers giving a blo-by-blow account of this particular incident.
Yes, I have some thoughts on directions I might like to go in relative to my own work. I’ll frame a page on Meta some time *roughly* within the next month and send you the link when it’s up. I need a place to think and interact and hear ideas.
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I
did
understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
their
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have
a
significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what
to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think
it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > Anna, >> >> Pete, > > Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
think
I
>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if
full
>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
not
be
>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>> > > I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
> > No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.” > > As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
being
> made. > As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
known
once
> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you
> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
> and > worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > > As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to
me.
I
> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
> > The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
> request to grant them. > > If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point
is
in
> >> tension with >> another one: >> >> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list >> participants. >> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a
>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would
>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
behind
>> an >> effort to make it grow or sustain. >> >> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
Evaluation_Service>
> and > > what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the > interactive > team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > > The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to
pause,
> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this
> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.” > > But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may
not
be
>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
moved
>> on by then. >> >> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
for
> software. > I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still
> stands. > > -Pete >> -- >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> /a > [[User:Annaproject]] > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
>> > >> wrote: >> >> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >>> >>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
where
his
>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>>> >>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face >>> >> constraints. >> >>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
and
then,
>>> >> there >> >>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline
that
meets
>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>>> >> this. >> >>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
nor
did
>>> >> anyone >> >>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >>> >>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>>> >> this >> >>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>>> >> allow >> >>> for one person to return to work? >>> >>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >>> >>> Warmly, >>> /a >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>> >>>> […] >>>>> 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. >>>>> […] >>>>> >>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- >>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- >>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that >>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but >>>> be backed and explainable by others. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> 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>
>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
>>> Margaret >>> Fuller >>> >>> Anna Stillwell >>> Director of Culture >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> 415.806.1536 >>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> 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:
>> 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/wik
i/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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do. Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the strategic level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early consultation would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice. Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... . This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would also require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved *the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different this year?
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently refused to even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter? I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.
1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster 2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a wide range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire to expose its view of those problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my real name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm
I
did
understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
their
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have
a
significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what
to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think
it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > Anna, >> >> Pete, > > Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
think
I
>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if
full
>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
not
be
>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>> > > I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
> > No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“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.” > > As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
being
> made. > As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
known
once
> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you
> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
> and > worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > > As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to
me.
I
> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
> > The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
> request to grant them. > > If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in
> >> tension with >> another one: >> >> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain
are
complex,
>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list >> participants. >> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a
>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would
>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
behind
>> an >> effort to make it grow or sustain. >> >> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
Evaluation_Service>
> and > > what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
Readers.
> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the > interactive > team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > > The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed
to
pause,
> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this
> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.” > > But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may
not
be
>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
moved
>> on by then. >> >> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
for
> software. > I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still
> stands. > > -Pete >> -- >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> /a > [[User:Annaproject]] > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
>> > >> wrote: >> >> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >>> >>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
where
his
>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>>> >>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all
face
>>> >> constraints. >> >>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
and
then,
>>> >> there >> >>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline
that
meets
>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>>> >> this. >> >>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
nor
did
>>> >> anyone >> >>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >>> >>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>>> >> this >> >>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>>> >> allow >> >>> for one person to return to work? >>> >>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >>> >>> Warmly, >>> /a >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>> >>>> […] >>>>> 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. >>>>> […] >>>>> >>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- >>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- >>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that >>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but >>>> be backed and explainable by others. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> 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>
>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
>>> Margaret >>> Fuller >>> >>> Anna Stillwell >>> Director of Culture >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> 415.806.1536 >>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> 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:
>> 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/wik
i/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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
--
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
Hoi, When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp, I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community. What community? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
the
software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do. Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the strategic level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early consultation would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice. Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... . This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would also require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
not
like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
achieved
*the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different this year?
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently refused to even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter? I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.
- The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster 2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a wide range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire to expose its view of those problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my real name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed
by
Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier
and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to
the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
> Anna, > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm
I
did
> understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
> inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
> differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their
> recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
> enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
this > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
degree
is > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. >
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
Sad!).
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
make
> of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or
> anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
> grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on
a
scale
that > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked
of > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. >
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who
all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3,
if
you'd
> like. >
Thanks. I'll reach out.
> > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >> >> Anna, >>> >>> Pete, >> >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what
I
think
I
>>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if
full
>>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
not
be
>>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>>> >> >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
>> >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“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.” >> >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions
are
being
>> made. >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
known
once >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
>> and >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. >> >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra
to
me.
I
>> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
>> >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
>> request to grant them. >> >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in
>> >>> tension with >>> another one: >>> >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare
and
important >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain
are
complex, >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list >>> participants. >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
behind >>> an >>> effort to make it grow or sustain. >>> >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
generate
>> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
Evaluation_Service>
>> and >> >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
Readers. >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see
the
>> interactive >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. >> >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed
to
pause,
>> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.” >> >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today
may
not
be
>>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
moved >>> on by then. >>> >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
for
>> software. >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
>> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still >> stands. >> >> -Pete >>> -- >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >>> >>> /a >> [[User:Annaproject]] >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell < astillwell@wikimedia.org >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >>>> >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a
period
where
his >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>>>> >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all
face
>>>> >>> constraints. >>> >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
and
then,
>>>> >>> there >>> >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
meets >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>>>> >>> this. >>> >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
nor
did
>>>> >>> anyone >>> >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >>>> >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>>>> >>> this >>> >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>>>> >>> allow >>> >>>> for one person to return to work? >>>> >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >>>> >>>> Warmly, >>>> /a >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >>>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> […] >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> […] >>>>>> >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a
use-
>>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
>>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
>>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee,
but
>>>>> be backed and explainable by others. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
>>>> Margaret >>>> Fuller >>>> >>>> Anna Stillwell >>>> Director of Culture >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> 415.806.1536 >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> 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:
>>> 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/wik
> i/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>
>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
--
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Gerard,
If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made particularly good?
Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to contribute to the WMF strategic planning process? If so, by all means say so explicitly.
"Rogol"
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en wp, I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community. What community? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
understanding
problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
between
members of the community with an interest in and experience of
software
issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
the
software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
do.
Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
decided
upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
some
ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the strategic level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early
consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice. Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ...
.
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would
also
require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
not a
challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
not
like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
achieved
*the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait
to
hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different this year?
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go
so
far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap
and
it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently refused
to
even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter? I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.
- The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster 2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it
too
difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased
to
admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it
knows
the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a
wide
range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire
to
expose its view of those problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking
or
even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my
real
name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically
in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not
for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should
always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed
by
Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson
for
management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier
and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to
the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X,
Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears
the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give
you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to
the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are
few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > Anna, > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can
confirm
I
did
> > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my
summary
was
> > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
> > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their
> > recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do
not
think
the > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
> this > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that > necessitates > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
degree > is > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. > > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
Sad!).
> > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
make > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
> > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's worthwhile > to > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more
on
a
scale
> that > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked > of > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
> time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or
a
discussion > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who
all
seemed
> to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
to
them > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully
and
legally
> provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work. > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
is
> reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like
I've
not
made
> this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help? > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3,
if
you'd
> > like. > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out. > > > > > -Pete > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> >> wrote: > >> > >> Anna, > >>> > >>> Pete, > >> > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize
what
I
think
I > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard,
and
if
full
> >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers
may
not
be
> >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
> >>> > >> > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
> >> > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“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.” > >> > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions
are
being
> >> made. > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
known
> once > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
> you > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law > >> and > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > >> > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra
to
me.
I
> >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
> >> > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
> >> request to grant them. > >> > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in
> >> > >>> tension with > >>> another one: > >>> > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare
and
> important > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain
are
> complex, > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing
list
> >>> participants. > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
> in a > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers
and
staff)
> would > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
> behind > >>> an > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain. > >>> > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
generate > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_ Evaluation_Service > >> and > >> > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
> Readers. > >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see
the
> >> interactive > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > >> > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they
needed
to
pause, > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's
aim
during
> this > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable
state.”
> >> > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today
may
not
be
> >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
> moved > >>> on by then. > >>> > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about
enthusiasm
for
> >> software. > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life
of a
week,
> >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless,
your
point
> still > >> stands. > >> > >> -Pete > >>> -- > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] > >>> > >>> /a > >> [[User:Annaproject]] > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell < > astillwell@wikimedia.org > >>> > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. > >>>> > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a
period
where
> his > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until
his
[her/they] > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business." > >>>> > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all
face
> >>>> > >>> constraints. > >>> > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every
now
and
then, > >>>> > >>> there > >>> > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
> meets > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue
to
work
on
> >>>> > >>> this. > >>> > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful
practice"
nor
did
> >>>> > >>> anyone > >>> > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. > >>>> > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in > >>>> > >>> this > >>> > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit
of
time
and > >>>> > >>> allow > >>> > >>>> for one person to return to work? > >>>> > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? > >>>> > >>>> Warmly, > >>>> /a > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < > >>>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> […] > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> […] > >>>>>> > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a
use-
> >>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
> >>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee
should
> >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work > >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. > >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team > >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee,
but
> >>>>> be backed and explainable by others. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tim > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
> >>>> Margaret > >>>> Fuller > >>>> > >>>> Anna Stillwell > >>>> Director of Culture > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation > >>>> 415.806.1536 > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.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 > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> 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/wik > > i/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>
> > > > > > -- > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it."
Margaret
> Fuller > > Anna Stillwell > Director of Culture > Wikimedia Foundation > 415.806.1536 > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
>
--
> James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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:
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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Hoi, What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally wrong with the notions pandered. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 January 2017 at 18:54, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made particularly good?
Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to contribute to the WMF strategic planning process? If so, by all means say so explicitly.
"Rogol"
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en
wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of 50% of our traffic.
It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community. What community? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
understanding
problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones
in
simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
between
members of the community with an interest in and experience of
software
issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management
developing
the
software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
do.
Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what
to
build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
decided
upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing
bright
ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
some
ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at
the
strategic level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early
consultation
would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work
satisfactorily
even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice. Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the
projects
really need support for some major extension to the knowledge
representable
by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics,
...
.
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would
also
require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
not a
challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing
is
not
like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
achieved
*the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll
wait
to
hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
and
transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What
has
changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be
different
this year?
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go
so
far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap
and
it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently
refused
to
even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter?
I
can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to enumerate.
- The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster 2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it
too
difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is
embarrased
to
admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it
knows
the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a
wide
range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one?
What
would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other
end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help
with
the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements;
to
plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having
the
ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no
desire
to
expose its view of those problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking
or
even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my
real
name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a
fictional
wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically
in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not
for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should
always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in
some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue
is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is
attributed
by
Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson
for
management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more,
earlier
and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable
to
the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I guess the question is was this a request for input on what
the
community > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
> was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do
X,
Y,
and
Z. > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears
the
second > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give
you
our
> opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-) > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
> 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was
carrying
out.
> my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to
the
WM
> movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are
few
and
far > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he
will
continue
> on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to
put
food
on
> the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
> movement will pick him up. > > Best > James > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell < astillwell@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > > > Anna, > > > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can
confirm
I
did
> > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my
summary
was
> > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their > > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do
not
think
> the > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on > > this > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause"
that
> > necessitates > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
> degree > > is > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. > > > > > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
Sad!). > > > > > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
> make > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ, > or > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense.
It's
> worthwhile > > to > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more
on
a
scale > > that > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something
specific
being
> asked > > of > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. > > > > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to
give
them
the > > time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question,
or
a
> discussion > > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented,
who
all
seemed > > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team
get
back
to
> them > > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully
and
legally > > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future
work.
> > > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
is > > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like
I've
not
made > > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help? > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of
Q3,
if
you'd > > > like. > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out. > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth < peteforsyth@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Anna, > > >>> > > >>> Pete, > > >> > > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize
what
I
think > I > > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard,
and
if
full > > >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers
may
not
be > > >>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that
about
right?
> > >>> > > >> > > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I
mean.
Thanks.
> > >> > > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“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.” > > >> > > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of
assumptions
are
being > > >> made. > > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
known > > once > > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations > > you > > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
> law > > >> and > > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > > >> > > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like
extra
to
me.
I > > >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my
personal
choice.
> > >> > > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be
a
reasonable > > >> request to grant them. > > >> > > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in > > >> > > >>> tension with > > >>> another one: > > >>> > > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a
rare
and
> > important > > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or
sustain
are
> > complex, > > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing
list
> > >>> participants. > > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm > > in a > > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers
and
staff)
> > would > > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a
little
weight
> > behind > > >>> an > > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain. > > >>> > > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
> generate > > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited
about
ORES
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_ Evaluation_Service> > > >> and > > >> > > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs,
and
New
> > Readers. > > >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to
see
the
> > >> interactive > > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > > >> > > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they
needed
to
> pause, > > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's
aim
during > > this > > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable
state.”
> > >> > > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible
today
may
not
be > > >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
> > moved > > >>> on by then. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about
enthusiasm
for
> > >> software. > > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life
of a
week,
> > >> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless,
your
point
> > still > > >> stands. > > >> > > >> -Pete > > >>> -- > > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > >>> > > >>> /a > > >> [[User:Annaproject]] > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell < > > astillwell@wikimedia.org > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. > > >>>> > > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a
period
where > > his > > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until
his
> [her/they] > > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care
of
> business." > > >>>> > > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
> In > > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we
all
face
> > >>>> > > >>> constraints. > > >>> > > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every
now
and
> then, > > >>>> > > >>> there > > >>> > > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
> > meets > > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll
continue
to
work
on > > >>>> > > >>> this. > > >>> > > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful
practice"
nor
did > > >>>> > > >>> anyone > > >>> > > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. > > >>>> > > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating > in > > >>>> > > >>> this > > >>> > > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a
bit
of
time
> and > > >>>> > > >>> allow > > >>> > > >>>> for one person to return to work? > > >>>> > > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? > > >>>> > > >>>> Warmly, > > >>>> /a > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < > > >>>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de > > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> […] > > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>> […] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a
use-
> > >>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
> > >>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> > >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee
should
> > >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his
work
> > >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but > > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of
business.
> > >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team > > >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one
employee,
but
> > >>>>> be backed and explainable by others. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Tim > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> 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> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles
in
it." -
> > >>>> Margaret > > >>>> Fuller > > >>>> > > >>>> Anna Stillwell > > >>>> Director of Culture > > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation > > >>>> 415.806.1536 > > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.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> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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/wik > > > i/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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it."
Margaret > > Fuller > > > > Anna Stillwell > > Director of Culture > > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415.806.1536 > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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>
> > > > > > --
> > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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:
> 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>
>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
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
Gerard,
What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally wrong with the notions pandered.
I agree, and the more readily since I do not think, and have not said, that the English-language Wikipedia constitutes the whole of the Community: there are many languages, many projects, and in addition to the many who contribute the content to the projects, there are those community members who contribute through technical work or strategic advice.
The Foundation needs to be able to enagage with all these people. That is not easy, and will require work, technical tools and genuine willingness, but it can be done – more, it must be done.
"Rogol"
"Rogol",
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna
To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing
the
software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do. Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing bright ideas at the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in some ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at the strategic level.
I now understand your perspective.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017. I know that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the kind of collaboration you speak of.
To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a lot of work on Gather, a social media addon for Wikipedia. Early consultation would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical implementation made it all but impossible to do that work satisfactorily even if it had been consistent the the community policy and practice.
Very useful context. I see your point.
Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the projects really need support for some major extension to the knowledge representable by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics, genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics, ... .This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and requires a lot of collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would also require a Roadmap, see below.
Thank you. You’ve clearly answered my question about how it is different. Very useful.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is
not
like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
achieved
*the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term and transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
Useful, clear summary. Appreciated.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy at lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as well as volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them very much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source. They talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where they could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What they would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career, it’s all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s all I have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be happy to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as you know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind). I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a good faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future in open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap and it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently refused to even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter?
I don’t have enough information.
I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to
enumerate.
- The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
I have a penchant for comedy. Although I can appreciate the comedy of the lurching-monster imagery, I think this kind of language can place people on the defensive. It may lead them to withdraw. Withdrawing may not be the best thing to do, but it’s what many humans do. You are a very reasonable thinker and appear to be intent on solving problems, so this kind of joke/jab may undermine your deeper intent.
- The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it too
difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is embarrased to admit that it has not yet got round to doing it 4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it knows the Community would not like it 5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the effort to publish it 6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a wide range of subjects including this one
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help with the implementation; to spot possible gaps; to propose partnerships; to identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements; to plan its own work in terms of transitioning project content to new technologies and systems.
Yes, it would definitely enable these things in theory and many likely also in practice. I’m just now thinking of constraints (e.g., time, money, recruiting), which is not your point.
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no desire to expose its view of those problems.
I understand. I guess I’m trying to figure out just how cool and difficult this style of collaboration would be and what are the other cool and difficult things you fear we might not do if we deployed our resources in this way. At this stage, I’m not for or against. I’m just thinking.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize. Thank you.
/a
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my real name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a fictional wizard from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always
be
learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed
by
Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
have
advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier
and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to
the
Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
> Anna, > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm
I
did
> understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
> inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise. > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
> differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
their
> recent message captures the gist of what I intended. > > I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
> enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
this > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that necessitates > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can
have
a
> significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to
whatever
degree
is > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief. >
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
glasses.
Sad!).
> > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure
what
to
make
> of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or
> anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
> grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on
a
scale
that > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked
of > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is. >
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who
all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get
back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3,
if
you'd
> like. >
Thanks. I'll reach out.
> > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
>> wrote: >> >> Anna, >>> >>> Pete, >> >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what
I
think
I
>>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if
full
>>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
not
be
>>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>>> >> >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
>> >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“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.” >> >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions
are
being
>> made. >> As for thorough answers, some might already be known and
others
known
once >> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
>> and >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. >> >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra
to
me.
I
>> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
>> >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
>> request to grant them. >> >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the
point
is
in
>> >>> tension with >>> another one: >>> >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare
and
important >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain
are
complex, >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list >>> participants. >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
behind >>> an >>> effort to make it grow or sustain. >>> >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent
outputs
generate
>> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about
ORES
Evaluation_Service>
>> and >> >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and
New
Readers. >> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see
the
>> interactive >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. >> >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed
to
pause,
>> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.” >> >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today
may
not
be
>>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
moved >>> on by then. >>> >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
for
>> software. >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
>> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still >> stands. >> >> -Pete >>> -- >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >>> >>> /a >> [[User:Annaproject]] >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell < astillwell@wikimedia.org >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >>>> >>>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a
period
where
his >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>>>> >>>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all
face
>>>> >>> constraints. >>> >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
and
then,
>>>> >>> there >>> >>>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a
timeline
that
meets >>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>>>> >>> this. >>> >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
nor
did
>>>> >>> anyone >>> >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >>>> >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>>>> >>> this >>> >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>>>> >>> allow >>> >>>> for one person to return to work? >>>> >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >>>> >>>> Warmly, >>>> /a >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >>>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> […] >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> […] >>>>>> >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a
use-
>>>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
>>>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
>>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee,
but
>>>>> be backed and explainable by others. >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
>>>> Margaret >>>> Fuller >>>> >>>> Anna Stillwell >>>> Director of Culture >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> 415.806.1536 >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> 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:
>>> 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/wik
> i/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>
>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
--
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017. I know that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as well as volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them very much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source. They talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where they could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What they would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career, it’s all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s all I have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be happy to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as you know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind). I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a good faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future in open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's public pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not thought that.
In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here. It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe, and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists. You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize. Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules. After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017. I
know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that
you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in
my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for
the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there. It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way. There is so much work to do on so many fronts.
I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_ Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in
the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as well
as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them very much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source.
They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where
they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What
they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
Cool. I think we’re thinking in some similar directions. It seems like
we're interested in similar problems. I still don’t know what to do about it. It's not as easy as it looks, but it definitely looks like that is the direction we should go in.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will
be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career,
it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s
all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be
happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as
you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind). I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a
good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future
in
open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's public pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not thought that.
I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece together what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in any way on this particular instance.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here.
We're cool.
It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe,
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture challenges as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
To be any more transparent, I would have to wear a body cam. I trust the NSA is working on it.
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take us at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
I work to identify general problems. Once identified, I seek to understand which problems are my most important problems. I don't think in terms of priorities. I think about my most important problems because the wording helps me get to and stick to the heart of it.
Then I like to debate my most important problems because someone could see information that I can't. Why those problems? What is the rationale? Potentially I revise my most important problems based on input or reading or speaking to other knowledgeable people.
Then I decide which problems I am going to work to solve. Then I think about the best way to solve them. Then I try to imagine all of the things that could wrong. Then I remember that no plan survives its first engagement with reality and that I have to get started experimenting.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize. Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how do you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it differently. Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
It made me want a fictitious title for myself that no one could pronounce. Perhaps that’s why my new title, which someone else came up with, sounded so fun to me: it’s a fictitious title that almost no one can pronounce. For example, when I first said it to Guillaume, he winced at my pronunciation. He tried not to. He really did. He put in a good faith effort.
But that made me wonder, does Rogol even know how to pronounce his fictitious name?
THE JD
Chargé d’Affaires
Collaboratively build a culture and organization for the future.
-
In partnership with the executive team, think and act in service of talent and culture needs for the future of our projects and movement (e.g., forecast future talent needs—individual and collective competencies). -
Co-design (with Joady) the vision and execute a leading-edge, comprehensive talent management strategy. -
Co-define and co-execute (with Joady) a coherent, inclusive philosophy across the employee lifecycle. -
Champion our values, embed them throughout the employee lifecycle. -
Champion special projects and ideas worthy of support. -
Represent culture and organizational design at executive team.
Collaboratively recruit high-level roles for the future: Board of Trustees, Endowment Board, executives, and special projects.
Engage leaders in their own development:
-
Roll out a leadership framework, a central architecture of accountabilities at different levels of leadership throughout the organization, sync JDs. -
Drive and evolve our cutting-edge leadership program. -
Drive adoption of our leadership practices. -
Develop, drive, and evolve manager training (hiring, orienting, performance management, development, succession planning). -
Drive adoption of management practices. -
Lead the people side of succession planning. -
Manage and evolve cultural orientation.
Be an ambassador (Charge d’Affaires)
-
Make WMF a creative, generative, well-regarded culture to work within. -
Develop and represent the public profile of the Wikimedia Foundation as an employer and culture leader, including writing, external networking, and representing the foundation at public engagements.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Hoi, Anna I absolutely loved what you write. It is very much uplifting to see that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on the ground and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much that even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has given up on yesterdays arguments.
Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right. They forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.
When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their legacy. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me
to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules. After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017. I
know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that
you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in
my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for
the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there. It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way. There is so much work to do on so many fronts.
I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its
ideas
through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_ Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around
transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people
know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we
all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been
patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to
hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in
the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as
well
as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them
very
much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source.
They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what
they
really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where
they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What
they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make
it
seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a
basis
of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
Cool. I think we’re thinking in some similar directions. It seems like
we're interested in similar problems. I still don’t know what to do about it. It's not as easy as it looks, but it definitely looks like that is the direction we should go in.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will
be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career,
it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s
all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be
happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as
you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to
mind).
I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a
good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future
in
open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's
public
pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not thought that.
I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece together what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in any way on this particular instance.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps
an
indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here.
We're cool.
It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe,
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture challenges as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals?gclid= CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx6wAAAN1GRt7g: 20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
To be any more transparent, I would have to wear a body cam. I trust the NSA is working on it.
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take us at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
I work to identify general problems. Once identified, I seek to understand which problems are my most important problems. I don't think in terms of priorities. I think about my most important problems because the wording helps me get to and stick to the heart of it.
Then I like to debate my most important problems because someone could see information that I can't. Why those problems? What is the rationale? Potentially I revise my most important problems based on input or reading or speaking to other knowledgeable people.
Then I decide which problems I am going to work to solve. Then I think about the best way to solve them. Then I try to imagine all of the things that could wrong. Then I remember that no plan survives its first engagement with reality and that I have to get started experimenting.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize. Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how do you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it differently. Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
It made me want a fictitious title for myself that no one could pronounce. Perhaps that’s why my new title, which someone else came up with, sounded so fun to me: it’s a fictitious title that almost no one can pronounce. For example, when I first said it to Guillaume, he winced at my pronunciation. He tried not to. He really did. He put in a good faith effort.
But that made me wonder, does Rogol even know how to pronounce his fictitious name?
THE JD
Chargé d’Affaires
Collaboratively build a culture and organization for the future.
In partnership with the executive team, think and act in service of talent and culture needs for the future of our projects and movement (e.g., forecast future talent needs—individual and collective competencies).
Co-design (with Joady) the vision and execute a leading-edge, comprehensive talent management strategy.
Co-define and co-execute (with Joady) a coherent, inclusive philosophy across the employee lifecycle.
Champion our values, embed them throughout the employee lifecycle.
Champion special projects and ideas worthy of support.
Represent culture and organizational design at executive team.
Collaboratively recruit high-level roles for the future: Board of Trustees, Endowment Board, executives, and special projects.
Engage leaders in their own development:
Roll out a leadership framework, a central architecture of accountabilities at different levels of leadership throughout the organization, sync JDs.
Drive and evolve our cutting-edge leadership program.
Drive adoption of our leadership practices.
Develop, drive, and evolve manager training (hiring, orienting, performance management, development, succession planning).
Drive adoption of management practices.
Lead the people side of succession planning.
Manage and evolve cultural orientation.
Be an ambassador (Charge d’Affaires)
Make WMF a creative, generative, well-regarded culture to work within.
Develop and represent the public profile of the Wikimedia Foundation as an employer and culture leader, including writing, external networking, and representing the foundation at public engagements.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Anna I absolutely loved what you write.
Gerard, I'm feeling the love, dude. (A fellow co-worker and I were talking the other day and she said that she even calls inanimate objects dude. I deeply resonated. So "dude" for us is not a gendered pronoun.)
It is very much uplifting to see that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on the ground
Yes. Keep in mind that *we will make mistakes*. A lot of them. I promise you. I'm probably making one right now.
and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much that even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has given up on yesterdays arguments.
I agree with this statement. We need to build relationships for the future.
And, "Rogol" wasn't talking about the past. He was inquiring about a product roadmap, which is all about the future. And his questions were fair.
Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right. They forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.
Yes. Think of all of the places we could go and things we could do. Remember to offer your important ideas in the movement strategy conversation. It's about a strategic direction, a theme for the next 15 years. A general layer of meaning that sits right below the vision and describes the theme of the next 15 years. Might that not help coalesce our efforts?
When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their legacy.
I often forget to reality check if an argument still fits. Good reminder for me. It would be so much easier if reality would just let us make up our minds once and for all. lol.
Thanks,
GerardM
p.s. I know this may sound really ignorant, but what does "Hoi" mean? That's how you've started every email that I can ever remember.
On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me
to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules. After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me
on
a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A
bunch
of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits
would
show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement
strategy
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I
know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state
that
you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start
in
my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite
for
the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there. It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it
looks
like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way. There is so much work to do on so many fronts.
I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its
ideas
through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_ Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around
transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people
know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we
all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been
patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to
hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're
in
the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as
well
as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them
very
much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source.
They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what
they
really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know
where
they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency"
that
resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What
they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make
it
seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I
have
been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a
basis
of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
Cool. I think we’re thinking in some similar directions. It seems like
we're interested in similar problems. I still don’t know what to do about it. It's not as easy as it looks, but it definitely looks like that is
the
direction we should go in.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it
will
be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career,
it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s
all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be
happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long
as
you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just
legitimately
answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to
involve
relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to
mind).
I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a
good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the
future
in
open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's
public
pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with
people
like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not
thought
that.
I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
In the middle ground, there is the > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps
an
> indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and
revise
the
plan
> that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is
left
hanging
> by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here.
We're cool.
It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe,
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals?gclid= CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx6wAAAN1GRt7g: 20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
To be any more transparent, I would have to wear a body cam. I trust the NSA is working on it.
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
I work to identify general problems. Once identified, I seek to
understand
which problems are my most important problems. I don't think in terms of priorities. I think about my most important problems because the wording helps me get to and stick to the heart of it.
Then I like to debate my most important problems because someone could
see
information that I can't. Why those problems? What is the rationale? Potentially I revise my most important problems based on input or reading or speaking to other knowledgeable people.
Then I decide which problems I am going to work to solve. Then I think about the best way to solve them. Then I try to imagine all of the things that could wrong. Then I remember that no plan survives its first engagement with reality and that I have to get started experimenting.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might
organize.
Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
It made me want a fictitious title for myself that no one could
pronounce.
Perhaps that’s why my new title, which someone else came up with, sounded so fun to me: it’s a fictitious title that almost no one can pronounce.
For
example, when I first said it to Guillaume, he winced at my
pronunciation.
He tried not to. He really did. He put in a good faith effort.
But that made me wonder, does Rogol even know how to pronounce his fictitious name?
THE JD
Chargé d’Affaires
Collaboratively build a culture and organization for the future.
In partnership with the executive team, think and act in service of talent and culture needs for the future of our projects and movement (e.g., forecast future talent needs—individual and collective competencies).
Co-design (with Joady) the vision and execute a leading-edge, comprehensive talent management strategy.
Co-define and co-execute (with Joady) a coherent, inclusive philosophy across the employee lifecycle.
Champion our values, embed them throughout the employee lifecycle.
Champion special projects and ideas worthy of support.
Represent culture and organizational design at executive team.
Collaboratively recruit high-level roles for the future: Board of Trustees, Endowment Board, executives, and special projects.
Engage leaders in their own development:
Roll out a leadership framework, a central architecture of accountabilities at different levels of leadership throughout the organization, sync JDs.
Drive and evolve our cutting-edge leadership program.
Drive adoption of our leadership practices.
Develop, drive, and evolve manager training (hiring, orienting, performance management, development, succession planning).
Drive adoption of management practices.
Lead the people side of succession planning.
Manage and evolve cultural orientation.
Be an ambassador (Charge d’Affaires)
Make WMF a creative, generative, well-regarded culture to work within.
Develop and represent the public profile of the Wikimedia Foundation
as
an employer and culture leader, including writing, external
networking,
and representing the foundation at public engagements.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
To understand Hoi you first need to get yourself some stroopwafels to go with your coffee
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Anna I absolutely loved what you write.
Gerard, I'm feeling the love, dude. (A fellow co-worker and I were talking the other day and she said that she even calls inanimate objects dude. I deeply resonated. So "dude" for us is not a gendered pronoun.)
It is very much uplifting to see that you want to move forward and want to do this based on the facts on the ground
Yes. Keep in mind that *we will make mistakes*. A lot of them. I promise you. I'm probably making one right now.
and not so much on our convoluted history that is spread out so much that even someone like me who has been involved for the longest time has given up on yesterdays arguments.
I agree with this statement. We need to build relationships for the future.
And, "Rogol" wasn't talking about the past. He was inquiring about a product roadmap, which is all about the future. And his questions were fair.
Some will say but.. but ... and from their position they may be right.
They
forget that there are over 280 languages, more in the pipe line and even more projects and as it is we do not consider this at all. English Wikipedia is less than 50% and as Asaf said in a recent presentation less than 50% of the people in this world have English as a first or second language. Arguments from the past mean that the diversity we are is less important than the incumbency of the present talking heads.
Yes. Think of all of the places we could go and things we could do. Remember to offer your important ideas in the movement strategy conversation. It's about a strategic direction, a theme for the next 15 years. A general layer of meaning that sits right below the vision and describes the theme of the next 15 years. Might that not help coalesce our efforts?
When arguments are based in the past, the reality check if the arguments still fit the present is typically left out. When arguments are of high quality, they should still convince and do not need to consider their legacy.
I often forget to reality check if an argument still fits. Good reminder for me. It would be so much easier if reality would just let us make up our minds once and for all. lol.
Thanks,
GerardMp.s. I know this may sound really ignorant, but what does "Hoi" mean? That's how you've started every email that I can ever remember.
On 11 February 2017 at 02:34, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for
me
to
visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules. After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping
me
on
a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A
bunch
of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt
like
an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits
would
show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement
strategy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
. I
know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state
that
you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good
start
in
my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite
for
the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there. It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it
looks
like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way. There is so much work to do on so many fronts.
I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its
ideas
through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_ Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted
clarity
on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is
at
the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around
transparency,
I
> wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let
people
know
that > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why
we
all
fought > for it. > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord
around
> transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless. >
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been
patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to
hear
your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you.
We're
in
the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing.
We
invited some current and former community-selected board members as
well
as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them
very
much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations
were
anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant
source.
They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for
what
they
really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know
where
they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency"
that
resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them.
What
they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that
make
it
seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I
have
been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a
basis
of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
Cool. I think we’re thinking in some similar directions. It seems
like
we're interested in similar problems. I still don’t know what to do
about
it. It's not as easy as it looks, but it definitely looks like that is
the
direction we should go in.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it
will
be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my
career,
it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like
that’s
all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d
be
happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long
as
you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just
legitimately
answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to
involve
relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to
mind).
I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks
like a
good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the
future
in
open, inclusive, documented discourse <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's
public
pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with
people
like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not
thought
that.
I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
> In the middle ground, there is the > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.
Perhaps
an
> > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and
revise
the
plan > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is
left
hanging > > by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here.
We're cool.
It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe,
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not
know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm
at
least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just
asking
you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most
exposing
and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals?gclid= CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx6wAAAN1GRt7g: 20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
To be any more transparent, I would have to wear a body cam. I trust
the
NSA is working on it.
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words
lacks
even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not
take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
I work to identify general problems. Once identified, I seek to
understand
which problems are my most important problems. I don't think in terms
of
priorities. I think about my most important problems because the
wording
helps me get to and stick to the heart of it.
Then I like to debate my most important problems because someone could
see
information that I can't. Why those problems? What is the rationale? Potentially I revise my most important problems based on input or reading or
speaking
to other knowledgeable people.
Then I decide which problems I am going to work to solve. Then I think about the best way to solve them. Then I try to imagine all of the
things
that could wrong. Then I remember that no plan survives its first engagement with reality and that I have to get started experimenting.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might
organize.
Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey,
how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the
first
syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can
you
be *so sure*?”
It made me want a fictitious title for myself that no one could
pronounce.
Perhaps that’s why my new title, which someone else came up with,
sounded
so fun to me: it’s a fictitious title that almost no one can pronounce.
For
example, when I first said it to Guillaume, he winced at my
pronunciation.
He tried not to. He really did. He put in a good faith effort.
But that made me wonder, does Rogol even know how to pronounce his fictitious name?
THE JD
Chargé d’Affaires
Collaboratively build a culture and organization for the future.
In partnership with the executive team, think and act in service of talent and culture needs for the future of our projects and movement (e.g., forecast future talent needs—individual and collective competencies).
Co-design (with Joady) the vision and execute a leading-edge, comprehensive talent management strategy.
Co-define and co-execute (with Joady) a coherent, inclusive
philosophy
across the employee lifecycle.
Champion our values, embed them throughout the employee lifecycle.
Champion special projects and ideas worthy of support.
Represent culture and organizational design at executive team.
Collaboratively recruit high-level roles for the future: Board of Trustees, Endowment Board, executives, and special projects.
Engage leaders in their own development:
Roll out a leadership framework, a central architecture of accountabilities at different levels of leadership throughout the organization, sync JDs.
Drive and evolve our cutting-edge leadership program.
Drive adoption of our leadership practices.
Develop, drive, and evolve manager training (hiring, orienting, performance management, development, succession planning).
Drive adoption of management practices.
Lead the people side of succession planning.
Manage and evolve cultural orientation.
Be an ambassador (Charge d’Affaires)
Make WMF a creative, generative, well-regarded culture to work
within.
Develop and represent the public profile of the Wikimedia Foundation
as
an employer and culture leader, including writing, external
networking,
and representing the foundation at public engagements.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece together what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in any way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture challenges as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take us at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how do you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it differently. Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
"Rogol"
Hoi, Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument but such an argument has to convince us all.
I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural heritage).
My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is a map of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to navigate to unfamiliar places when travelling by car. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause
Hoi, Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument but such an argument has to convince us all.
I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural heritage).
My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13931 - Release Date: 02/11/17
The Foundation doesn't have a product roadmap because new product goals are updated at least once a year; more often internally. A roadmap as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap is appropriate when long term plans are under centralized control and not subject to change. The WMF uses a variety of means to update goals frequently from all its stakeholders, so how would a roadmap even help?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:03 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is a map of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to navigate to unfamiliar places when travelling by car. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause
Hoi, Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn from the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an argument but such an argument has to convince us all.
I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external to me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your arguments for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural heritage).
My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your arguments? Thanks, GerardM
Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution
set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not
know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then,
remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13931 - Release Date: 02/11/17
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
James and others,
The question of whether the WMF ought or ought not to have a roadmap is an interesting one, which I enourage you to debate not with me but with Wes Moran and the other members of the WMF leadership, for whom it is an actionable point.
My question is addressed to that leadership, and remains: Does the WMF have such a roadmap, and if so will they publish it?
Gerard and others,
The question of whether or not to learn from the past is also an interesting one. My answer to Gerard's plain questions, which were "Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English?" are respectively, "Yes, and I have done so frequently" and "Yes of course".
"Rogol"
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation doesn't have a product roadmap because new product goals are updated at least once a year; more often internally. A roadmap as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap is appropriate when long term plans are under centralized control and not subject to change. The WMF uses a variety of means to update goals frequently from all its stakeholders, so how would a roadmap even help?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 7:03 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
While we are on the subject of the meaning of words, to me a road map is
a
map of the road system. Something we used before we had talking GPS to navigate to unfamiliar places when travelling by car. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 2:55 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause
Hoi, Rogol... the past... whose past? When you argue that we have to learn
from
the past, it is good to accept current polities of a project as an
argument
but such an argument has to convince us all.
I have experience and I dispair. I find that policies that are external
to
me should be accepted by me because they are said to be "universal". I am not convinced by this argument at all. If you cannot present your
arguments
for our mutual setting you fail, your arguments fail.
When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural heritage).
My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am willing to argue mine? Are you willing to accept that there is more than only Wikipedia and only English? Are you happy to validate your
arguments?
Thanks, GerardM
Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 11:05 schreef Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from
it.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution
set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not
know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture
challenges
as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the
question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals ?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx 6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question,
then,
remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second...
evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13931 - Release Date:
02/11/17
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Hello Rogol,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are less interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the future. I merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps I solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation from a slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build an org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see what I hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining many ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on.
Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that I would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me, just not at this stage.
What I said was,
"I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly
address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest."
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
You have such a gentle touch. :)
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it is a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social behaviour. I assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not "Do you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap? - What do we currently have in terms of planning? - Will that change?
I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write to you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer another, more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week. That’s at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a coherent answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult to get time with.
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for the reference. I now know how to pronounce your name. Next time when you send me lovely video references like this, would you be willing to give me a time stamp? (It’s 39:15 in case others would like to hear it). As it was, I listened to Phillipe’s whole talk. Was that your intention? That I listen to Philippe's entire talk? If so, anything else you would have liked me to note?
p.s. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If it came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Anna,
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015 which may provide you with some background. I suggested some ideas about centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other process-oriented points. Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud identify three aspects that you might address.
Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that the community is a partner in the entire enterprise. Of course the community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise. Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to disaster.
One misundertood word is representation. I believe that some staff members believe that they can represent the community simply by having been volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their staff and volunteer identities. This is so far from true that it only needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological well-being. The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further contact with the community is utterly disastrous. Those with community engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit of enquiry. It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done, it is their work.
The WMF is distinctly less planful than I would expect. Genuine interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed questions of a few community members about which of a few predetermined options they prefer. It means doing a lot of work and being genuinely transparent. It also requires internal coordination of a kind which I do not always detect within the WMF.
Finally, the culture of complacency needs to be addressed. Being involved in a meritorious project does not automatically make the work done meritorious. Too many technical and community projects are initiated and then allowed to drift, or fade away, after having wasted staff time (which is donor money) and community time effort and goodwill. The WMF cannot afford to be as slack as this any longer.
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three
questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Thank you.
I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that
it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If it came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
less
interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
future. I
merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps I solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation from a slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build an org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see what I hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining many ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on.
Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that I would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me, just not at this stage.
What I said was,
"I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly
address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest."
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it.
You have such a gentle touch. :)
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not
"Do
you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a technical roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains
unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words
lacks
even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this issue over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not
take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know?
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write to you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer another, more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week. That’s at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a coherent answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult to get time with.
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey,
how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the
first
syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can
you
be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for the reference. I now know how to pronounce your name. Next time when you send me lovely video references like this, would you be willing to give me a time stamp? (It’s 39:15 in case others would like to hear it). As it was, I listened to Phillipe’s whole talk. Was that your intention? That I listen to Philippe's entire talk? If so, anything else you would have liked me to note?
p.s. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If it came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
general
solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015 which may provide you with some background. I suggested some ideas about centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other process-oriented points.
I will do a broad lit review when and if the time comes (on and off wiki). If I do so, I will follow these links and read about this as part of that broader lit review.
Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud identify three aspects that you might address.
Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that the community is a partner in the entire enterprise.
Agreed. No argument.
But I'd like to expand your argument. I would like to add a perspective, not subtract from yours. Our current communities are very seriously important partners in the entire enterprise, as we are theirs. These days, I am also thinking about future communities... new readers and new editors in new geographies on new devices, and reading the thoughts of experts on the evolution of platforms within the context of the evolving web.
I am also curious about the role of machines. Will they become an important partner? I know that they say we will welcome our robot overlords. But I am more interested in collaborating with them. Why can't humans and machines collaborate toward social/educational goods?
Machine learning is all the rage these days. But to what end? The standard, for-profit, big data play is to harvest and bottom feed a ton of data, run it through a layered algorithm, and spit out "something something" to a customer for a fee. I think they call it insight. I have a different definition of insight. But hey, to each their own.
We don't have customers and we don't bottom feed. Two things I am proud of. That is why I was so excited about ORES. An open, ethical, effective AI for social impact that currently helps vandal fighters https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/. More importantly, it may help with the "revert-new-editors’-first-few-edits-and-alienate-them problem". That's just the current capabilities of this platform.
My broader point being that I also want to think of the new stakeholders that will join us all and how we can prepare for and welcome them into the knowledge creating endeavor.
Of course the community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise. Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to disaster.
I understand your point.
One misundertood word is representation. I believe that some staff members believe that they can represent the community simply by having been volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their staff and volunteer identities. This is so far from true that it only needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological well-being. The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further contact with the community is utterly disastrous. Those with community engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit of enquiry. It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done, it is their work.
I don't know what staff members believe. I will investigate this when and if I arrive at that stage of problem solving. I understand your point.
Genuine interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed questions of a few community members about which of a few predetermined options they prefer. It means doing a lot of work and being genuinely transparent. It also requires internal coordination of a kind which I do not always detect within the WMF.
Point taken.
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three
questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Thank you.
Thank you for so graciously accepting my time constraints. I really do appreciate it. I don't want to let you down, but I also want to sleep and tend to my core responsibilities.
I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that
it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If
it
came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration.
Smiley face.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Rogol,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope
is
necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope
is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
less
interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
future. I
merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps I solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation from
a
slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build
an
org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see
what I
hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining many ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on.
Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that I would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me, just not at this stage.
What I said was,
"I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly
address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest."
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment
in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from
it.
You have such a gentle touch. :)
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
general
solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK, it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not
"Do
you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a
technical
roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so
please
will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and you were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but significantly less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains
unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words
lacks
even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this
issue
over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper
issue. I
hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not
take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will
you
let the community know?
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on
three
questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write
to
you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer another, more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week.
That’s
at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a
coherent
answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult to get time with.
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It may be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey,
how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the
first
syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can
you
be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015 Metrics Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for the reference. I now know how to pronounce your name. Next time when you send me lovely video references like this, would you be willing to give me a time stamp? (It’s 39:15 in case others would like to hear it). As it was, I listened to Phillipe’s whole talk. Was that your intention? That I listen to Philippe's entire talk? If so, anything else you would have liked me to note?
p.s. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me
that
it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name. If
it
came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention. I was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
Rogol,
Hello. I am close to having some clarity to share. Might I extend to mid April?
/a
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the
organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
general
solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK,
it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
I had a discussion on these matters, as I recall, with Rachel di Cerbo at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Liaisons/Wikimania_2015 which may provide you with some background. I suggested some ideas about centralisation of discussions, machine-assisted tranlsation and other process-oriented points.
I will do a broad lit review when and if the time comes (on and off wiki). If I do so, I will follow these links and read about this as part of that broader lit review.
Pulling back to a more cultural point, I woud identify three aspects that you might address.
Staff must actually want to engage, to co-create and to acknowledge that the community is a partner in the entire enterprise.
Agreed. No argument.
But I'd like to expand your argument. I would like to add a perspective, not subtract from yours. Our current communities are very seriously important partners in the entire enterprise, as we are theirs. These days, I am also thinking about future communities... new readers and new editors in new geographies on new devices, and reading the thoughts of experts on the evolution of platforms within the context of the evolving web.
I am also curious about the role of machines. Will they become an important partner? I know that they say we will welcome our robot overlords. But I am more interested in collaborating with them. Why can't humans and machines collaborate toward social/educational goods?
Machine learning is all the rage these days. But to what end? The standard, for-profit, big data play is to harvest and bottom feed a ton of data, run it through a layered algorithm, and spit out "something something" to a customer for a fee. I think they call it insight. I have a different definition of insight. But hey, to each their own.
We don't have customers and we don't bottom feed. Two things I am proud of. That is why I was so excited about ORES. An open, ethical, effective AI for social impact that currently helps vandal fighters https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544036/artificial-intelligence-aims-to-make-wikipedia-friendlier-and-better/. More importantly, it may help with the "revert-new-editors’-first-few-edits-and-alienate-them problem". That's just the current capabilities of this platform.
My broader point being that I also want to think of the new stakeholders that will join us all and how we can prepare for and welcome them into the knowledge creating endeavor.
Of course the community is not homogenous and the balance of work and responsibility is not identically equal in every single aspect of the enterprise. Nonetheless, the model of an active staff supporting and directing a passive community is both factually wrong and will inevitably lead to disaster.
I understand your point.
One misundertood word is representation. I believe that some staff members believe that they can represent the community simply by having been volunteers in the past, and even that they can timeshare between their staff and volunteer identities. This is so far from true that it only needs to be articulated to be seen as incorrect – indeed, the attempt to split their identities may be positively dangerous to their psychological well-being. The notion that only those with Wikimedia project experience should be hired, and that having hired such people they need no further contact with the community is utterly disastrous. Those with community engagement responsibilities must engage, actively, and in a genuine spirit of enquiry. It is not an unnecessary overhead on getting their work done, it is their work.
I don't know what staff members believe. I will investigate this when and if I arrive at that stage of problem solving. I understand your point.
Genuine interaction on planning does not mean asking a few closed questions of a few community members about which of a few predetermined options they prefer. It means doing a lot of work and being genuinely transparent. It also requires internal coordination of a kind which I do not always detect within the WMF.
Point taken.
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on three
questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It
may
be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Thank you.
Thank you for so graciously accepting my time constraints. I really do appreciate it. I don't want to let you down, but I also want to sleep and tend to my core responsibilities.
I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that
it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name.
If it
came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention.
I
was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration.
Smiley face.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello Rogol,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anna,
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps
hope is
necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire.
Hope is
not
a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over experience". The general tenor of your comments suggest that you are
less
interested in learning from the past as you are planning for the
future. I
merely suggest that the two go hand in hand.
I agree with your suggestion that they go hand in hand. I think perhaps
I
solve problems differently than you and I come to this conversation
from a
slightly different angle. I have a question on my mind, how do we build
an
org and a culture for the future? I’m scanning my environment to see
what I
hear, what people are talking about. I’m reading a lot. Entertaining
many
ideas. Given what I am hear, read and my specific role, where should I focus? I am still ascertaining which issues I might take on.
Specifics, including past successes and errors, would be something that
I
would investigate at a later stage. Your information is relevant to me, just not at this stage.
What I said was,
"I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly
address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars
to
keep the solution set honest."
[stuff]] I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece
together
what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment
in
any
way on this particular instance.
That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from
it.
You have such a gentle touch. :)
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little
about
the
past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad
hoc
and
particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and
general
solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set
honest.
I am not sure what you mean by "community service" here. In the UK,
it
is
a form of punishment given to young offenders for anti-social
behaviour. I
assume you mean something different?
I definitely mean something different. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. How do we engage staff in learning to interact with our communities? Where are ideal opportunities for exchange (e.g., the best places to collaborate) and where is collaboration least valuable, potentially even disruptive? I have no answers yet.
The underlying quesrion, as was sure you would have recognised, is not
"Do
you Anna Stillwell happen to know whether or not the WMF has a
technical
roadmap ..." but "Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so
please
will the WMF publish it." Perhaps I failed to make that clear, and
you
were assuming I was asking a more personally specific but
significantly
less useful version. My long-standing question, then, remains
unanswered:
*Does the WMF have a technical roadmap and if so please will the WMF publish it.*
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words
lacks
even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
I can only go by what I see as a pesistent refusal to address this
issue
over many weeks by multiple members of the WMF staff.
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper
issue. I
hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not
take
us
at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn
your
distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will
you
let the community know?
I will look into this. I will seek to understand the Tech position on
three
questions:
- What do we philosophically believe: to roadmap or not to roadmap?
- What do we currently have in terms of planning?
- Will that change?
I'll need some time. I have a lot of work right now (that's why I write
to
you on the weekends). Everybody does. I imagine you would prefer
another,
more speedy option, but I do not have it right now. We’re revving up the movement strategy and have our annual planning beginning next week.
That’s
at the org level. On top of that, my agenda is past max. To get a
coherent
answer and to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, I’ll need to speak with a number of people who may be difficult
to
get time with.
I’ll get back to you. It may take me until the beginning of April. It
may
be sooner, but I can’t promise anything sooner.
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey,
how
do
you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it
differently.
Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the
first
syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how
can
you
be *so sure*?”
Philippe Beaudette pronounced it acceptably it in the July 2015
Metrics
Meeting, see, or rather listen to, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWNGEht9lU&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for the reference. I now know how to pronounce your name. Next time when you send me lovely video references like this, would you be willing to give me a time stamp? (It’s 39:15 in case others would like
to
hear it). As it was, I listened to Phillipe’s whole talk. Was that your intention? That I listen to Philippe's entire talk? If so, anything else you would have liked me to note?
p.s. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me
that
it could be seen as though I were making fun of your fictitious name.
If it
came across that way, I really do apologize. That was not my intention.
I
was not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure that they were correct.
"Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 <(415)%20806-1536> *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org*
Good answer. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anna Stillwell Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 3:34 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate you teaching me the rules. After I posted, I also had a number of wiki elves simultaneously ping me on a number of different channels to let me know the very same thing. A bunch of gardeners just tending to the commons. It was delightful. It felt like an entrance into a different world. I was wondering when the hobbits would show up with second breakfast and above all: ale. I want some ale.
Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017. I
know
that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that
you
speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in
my
mind. It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for
the
kind of collaboration you speak of.
Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.
Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Besides, I could use some. Hope, that is. It’s looking bleak out there. It’s tough to wake up in the middle of your life and realize that it looks like most of the world thinks a regression back to nationalism and censorship and white, straight power is a good idea. Not as tough as needing knowledge and food and health every single day and not having access to it, but tough in a Maslow’s-hierarchy-kinda-way. There is so much work to do on so many fronts.
I wake up thinking about and feeling unsure about the future.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should.
They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_ Guidance which is currently under discussion. This appears to be a successor project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_ process/Communities which is described as stalled.
Thank you. I have not yet read these because I spent a lot of time this week clarifying Joady’s and my role with KM and JL. We all wanted clarity on which problems we were solving and which ones we were not. My JD is at the end of the email if you would like that clarity as well.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I
recently
heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in
the
final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/Framing. We invited some current and former community-selected board members as well
as
volunteers beyond the board to these conversations. I enjoyed them very much.
Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source.
They
talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where
they
could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that resonates with you?
That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What
they
would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have been concerned about. But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis of asymmetric access to information. So transparency seems to be the prerequisite
Cool. I think we’re thinking in some similar directions. It seems like
we're interested in similar problems. I still don’t know what to do about it. It's not as easy as it looks, but it definitely looks like that is the direction we should go in.
What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will
be
different this year?
Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career,
it’s
all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s
all I
have to offer: what not to do.
I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be
happy
to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as
you
know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately answering your question from my partial point of view.
Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind). I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a
good
faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future
in
open, inclusive, documented discourse https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017.
I see progress, not perfection.
I see confusion. In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's public pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people like me directly on her Meta talk page. Her predecessor had not thought that.
I don't have time to investigate this statement and work to piece together what happened, and since I don't have that time, I will not comment in any way on this particular instance.
Generally, I am thinking about community service training across the organization. I would love your help with that. I can do little about the past. I can address the future. To properly address the future, ad hoc and particular solution sets won't suffice. We'll need coherent and general solution sets, with enough particulars to keep the solution set honest.
In the middle ground, there is the
issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
hanging
by these events.
[...]
I don’t have enough information.
[...]
Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
I do not know.
I want to be polite here.
We're cool.
It is very unusual for an organisation like the WMF not to have the sort of Roadmap that I describe,
I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know.
and extraordinarily unusual that a person at your level in the organisation should not know of its existence and be able to confirm at least whether or not it exists.
Agreed.
One caveat: I am a Director in Talent and Culture. Please allow me to explain. You may have noticed we’ve had some talent and culture challenges as of late. I’m sure you can imagine how those challenges could keep me (one of two senior leaders in a department of 10, 5 of whom are solely dedicated to recruiting and 1 dedicated solely to employee benefits), relatively busy. Although I agree with you in principle, I’m just asking you to see how under those circumstances it could make sense that a Director in T&C might not be up to date on what is going on relative to Product Roadmaps.
However, I am here now.
You must be aware that your answer suggests at a bare minimum the possibility that you, as an officer of the WMF, are evading the question.
That possibility genuinely never occurred to me. Evading the question? Quite the contrary, Rogol. I have answered in the most exposing and real way possible. I have said, "I don’t know", on a public mailing list. Talk about a total lack of spin! I think that is in the Wharton-Business-School http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/for-individuals?gclid=CMGp9YTnhtICFURqfgod_AYI_g&slx=NAM_BRAND&ef_id=WFbx6wAAAN1GRt7g:20170211003858:s-what-not-to-do manual... admit that you don't know something in public.
To be any more transparent, I would have to wear a body cam. I trust the NSA is working on it.
If I may be so bold, it seems that your interpretation of my words lacks even basic faith. It seems to be the penultimate worst possible interpretation (the worst being lying, the second... evading).
But your nearly automatic interpretation may point to a deeper issue. I hear you saying that you don't take me at my word. That you may not take us at our word. And I imagine that we have done some things to earn your distrust. I hear you.
But I assure you that I am telling you the truth now: I do not know.
I work to identify general problems. Once identified, I seek to understand which problems are my most important problems. I don't think in terms of priorities. I think about my most important problems because the wording helps me get to and stick to the heart of it.
Then I like to debate my most important problems because someone could see information that I can't. Why those problems? What is the rationale? Potentially I revise my most important problems based on input or reading or speaking to other knowledgeable people.
Then I decide which problems I am going to work to solve. Then I think about the best way to solve them. Then I try to imagine all of the things that could wrong. Then I remember that no plan survives its first engagement with reality and that I have to get started experimenting.
You've helped me see some new possibilities for how we might organize. Thank you.
Thank you,
"Rogol"
Ok. How do you pronounce your fictitious name? I asked around, “Hey, how do you pronounce Rogol’s fictitious name”? Everyone pronounced it differently. Some had a hard g. Some had a soft one. Some placed emphasis on the first syllable. Some on the second.
I couldn’t stop laughing. I said to them, “But he’s made up…. how can you be *so sure*?”
It made me want a fictitious title for myself that no one could pronounce. Perhaps that’s why my new title, which someone else came up with, sounded so fun to me: it’s a fictitious title that almost no one can pronounce. For example, when I first said it to Guillaume, he winced at my pronunciation. He tried not to. He really did. He put in a good faith effort.
But that made me wonder, does Rogol even know how to pronounce his fictitious name?
THE JD
Chargé d’Affaires
Collaboratively build a culture and organization for the future.
-
In partnership with the executive team, think and act in service of talent and culture needs for the future of our projects and movement (e.g., forecast future talent needs—individual and collective competencies). -
Co-design (with Joady) the vision and execute a leading-edge, comprehensive talent management strategy. -
Co-define and co-execute (with Joady) a coherent, inclusive philosophy across the employee lifecycle. -
Champion our values, embed them throughout the employee lifecycle. -
Champion special projects and ideas worthy of support. -
Represent culture and organizational design at executive team.
Collaboratively recruit high-level roles for the future: Board of Trustees, Endowment Board, executives, and special projects.
Engage leaders in their own development:
-
Roll out a leadership framework, a central architecture of accountabilities at different levels of leadership throughout the organization, sync JDs. -
Drive and evolve our cutting-edge leadership program. -
Drive adoption of our leadership practices. -
Develop, drive, and evolve manager training (hiring, orienting, performance management, development, succession planning). -
Drive adoption of management practices. -
Lead the people side of succession planning. -
Manage and evolve cultural orientation.
Be an ambassador (Charge d’Affaires)
-
Make WMF a creative, generative, well-regarded culture to work within. -
Develop and represent the public profile of the Wikimedia Foundation as an employer and culture leader, including writing, external networking, and representing the foundation at public engagements.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Chargée d’Affaires / VP Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13926 - Release Date: 02/10/17
The sincerity and quality of communication in this thread, and is deep-linked citations, made me grin in an outrageous week. You are all wonderful.
On the original subject: Interactives are increasingly satisfying to use; hats off to those involved. No surprise they inspired this shaded love-fest, and thanks for the active communication.
And, as there are few threads that cannot be improved with some enthusiastic singing: Perhaps each new reply can contribute to a karaoke-chain.. . SJ
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I did understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary was inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps interpreting differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details; their recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not think the enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial message on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have a significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what to make of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine, James, DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with standing to grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific being
asked of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all seemed to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and legally provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think it is reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've not made this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if you'd like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Anna,
Pete,
Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I
heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right?
I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean. Thanks.
No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “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.”
As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are being made. As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others known
once
more planning is completed. However, it could be that the explanations
you
want are not legal to share. There are many issues where employment law and worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be.
As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to me. I usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal choice.
The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a reasonable request to grant them.
If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point is in
tension with another one:
Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list participants. The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated enthusiasm
in a
number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and staff)
would
like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little weight
behind
an effort to make it grow or sustain.
Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service and
what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the interactive team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to pause, have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim during
this
period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.”
But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may not be
possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have evolved or
moved
on by then.
I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm for
software. I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a week, however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your point
still
stands.
-Pete
-- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
/a
[[User:Annaproject]]
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where
his
[her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that
meets
the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating
in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…] > 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. > […] > I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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/wik i/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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 <415.806.1536> *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
Anna thank you so much for handling all of this. You do a great job and I am very appreciative of that...
On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face constraints. There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then, there are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on this. But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did anyone suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in this one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and allow for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
Thanks for the summary, Chris.
Communications problems with WMF are a sore spot for me, as I've suffered through a number of them. Despite years of talking about improving communication, I've seen mixed results to date. I think that the community liaisons have been valuable, but there is still much room for improvement, particularly when it comes to how unpredictable WMF staff are in responding to talk page and email inquiries.
Narrowing focus a little bit to to expand on my earlier point on the value of having the decision-maker available to answer questions: if the decision-maker is unavailable for a good reason (and I don't mean a scheduled vacation, as a decision to pause the work for a team should have been thoughtfully considered prior to its announcement, and there is every good reason to budget an hour or two to prepare communications before announcing decisions like this), I think it's reasonable to expect that someone else with full access to the facts should be available for Q&A. That might be a communication person or a technical liaison, or the person's supervisor. The impression I get is that Dan was making a good-faith effort to answer questions but did not have access to all of the facts. I hope that in future cases where the decision-maker is unavailable, that there will be better planning so that someone who does have access to all of the facts is available for Q&A.
I'm going to be frank. A scheduled vacation isn't an excuse for poor planning. I don't mean to say that in a punitive way (I've made planning errors myself), but rather in the sense that I hope that there will be thought invested in how to do better planning in the future for communications surrounding significant decisions when the decision-maker will be unavailable. Looping back to the beginning of this thread, I agree with DJ: "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." I've had similar frustrations with unresponsiveness from other staff, and I'd like to see some meaningful effort invested in ensuring that every good-faith inquiry gets a timely and well-informed answer.
This email is probably a little harsher than I would like it to sound. I admit to being frustrated -- not so much about this particular case, but the general situation of the very mixed levels of WMF staff responsiveness to requests for information.
Pine
Pine,
This email is probably a little harsher than I would like it to sound. I admit to being frustrated -- not so much about this particular case, but the general situation of the very mixed levels of WMF staff responsiveness to requests for information.
Heard.
I'll be ready to talk ideas about this at the end of Q3, but not before. I'm not promising a course of action yet, I'd like to understand a lot more first. Might I reach out to you at that time and understand your thoughts? Anyone else willing to let me ring them and ask them questions?
/a
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Hey Kelly,
Nice to hear from you. Glad you've chimed in.
I know a lot of people on this team. They have all seemed reasonable to me in addition to being well intentioned. They're competent people. My bet is that they have this handled, but there's a lag in communication time for some reason and that they are working on that.
And contributors are enthusiastic about software. Claro que si! This is obviously a good thing and we very much want to listen to what they have to say and understand their needs.
I just stepped in at the last minute to see if people were willing to give them a bit of time. The credit belongs elsewhere, but it's nice to hear your voice and I hope your new role is going well.
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Kelly Battles kbattles@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anna thank you so much for handling all of this. You do a great job and I am very appreciative of that...
On Jan 25, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
"An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his [her/they] return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business."
I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think otherwise. In theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face
constraints.
There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now and then,
there
are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline that meets the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to work on
this.
But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice" nor did
anyone
suggest that it was generalized across the org.
What I was wondering about in my previous email and now reiterating in
this
one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of time and
allow
for one person to return to work?
Does that seem like a way to move forward?
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de
wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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
Agree with Tim, one would image that a fair bit of thought would have gone into a decision such as this. That it would have occurred over multiple meetings with substantial input from various parts of the organization. I think it is reasonable to give the WMF some time to comment on this further.
Yuri Astrakhan is still listed as "Interactive Tech Team Lead" https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Yurik Further clarification around that including comments from him would be useful. I know from my meetings with Yuri over the years he is very dedicated to the work of developing tools that help Wiki(m)pedia build rich content.
J
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:
Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
[…]
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.
[…]
I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should not experience their time off as a period where his work load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of business. Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but be backed and explainable by others.
Tim
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@lists.wikimedia.org