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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

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). 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_… Best James On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

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 &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 <(206)%20801-0814> lane(a)bluerasberry.com

Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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. 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 01/25/2017 09:52 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: :) 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'll have the karaoke machine ready! -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- "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>*

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 &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- "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>*

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 &lt;domedonfors(a)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. > 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(a)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(a)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 &lt;jmh649(a)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. > > > 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(a)wikimedia.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth < > > peteforsyth(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)tim-landscheidt.de > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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 &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

"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 &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. Very useful context. I see your point. Thank you. You’ve clearly answered my question about how it is different. Very useful. Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the reference and I should. Useful, clear summary. Appreciated. 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. 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 don’t have enough information. I can think of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to 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. I do not know. 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. 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 -- "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>*

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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. 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. I didn’t say that we didn’t have a Roadmap. I said that I did not know. 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. 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(a)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>*

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com 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.) Yes. Keep in mind that *we will make mistakes*. A lot of them. I promise you. I'm probably making one right now. 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. 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? 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, 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 &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Rogol Domedonfors < > domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > 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(a)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(a)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(a)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>*

Anna, 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. That is your decision, but it means that you will learn nothing from it. 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? 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.* 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. Do you propose to take any steps to find out? If you do, please will you let the community know? 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"

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 &lt;domedonfors(a)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(a)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(a)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

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 &lt;jsalsman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Anna, 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 Thank you. I received another email from another lovely wiki elf explaining to me that I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration. "Rogol" On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > Hello Rogol, > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; > 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 > > > > > > "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(a)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(a)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 &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.orgwrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.comwrote: > > 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 necessitates 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 worthwhile to that 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 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 &lt;peteforsyth(a)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 truth 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 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 complex, in a would 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(a)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] > >>>> 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(a)tim-landscheidt.de > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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 <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 <(617)%20529-4266

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

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 &lt;kbattles(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- "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>*