Hello everyone,
(This statement is available on Meta-Wiki for translation and wider distribution)
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees published a statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC supporting a community vote on the proposed enforcement guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct (UCoC).
One of the key recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusionof the strategic goals for 2030 was the collaborative creation of a UCoC to provide a global baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement without tolerance for harassment. The global Wikimedia community must work well together in producing knowledge resources for the benefit of the world. Forging welcoming, inclusive, harassment-free spaces in which people can contribute productively and debate constructively is critical for the movement’s success.
The Board continues to stand by its May 2020 statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces on “Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces” that, “harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision & mission” and to our joint strategic goals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations for 2030.
The ratification of the collaboratively created UCoC last year was a notable milestone, and hopefully the discussion on the ratification process for the collaboratively created enforcement guidelines proposal today will lead to another one.
The enforcement guidelines proposal is a major achievement of thoughtful co-creation for the global communities that took part in the months of consultations, the volunteers leading the drafting committee itself, and the Foundation. The Board is very grateful to the volunteers and staff members who collaboratively co-created first the UCoC itself that the trustees ratified last year, and now the enforcement guideline proposal.
While the UCoC is already in effect, the completion and ratification of the guidelines will allow everyone to begin a period of assessing how they function, in action. We should collectively discover where both the original document and the pathways to enforce it work well and where they need to be improved. Once the guidelines are adopted, communities and the Foundation will begin to collect information on how they are working for the subsequent review of both after a year.
The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines proposal prior to the Board’s own ratification of the final guidelines. Trustees also recognize the support of such a vote expressed by surveyed volunteer functionaries, affiliate members, and the drafting committee.
Based on their input, and aligned with processes used for the Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, all registered Wikimedia contributors who meet minimum activity requirements, affiliate and Foundation staff and contractors (employed prior to 1/17/22), and current and former Foundation trustees, will have the opportunity to vote on the enforcement guidelines proposal in SecurePoll.
A threshold of above 50% support of participating users will be needed to move on to Board of Trustees ratification. If the majority of voters oppose the adoption of the guidelines as written, they will be asked which elements need to be changed and why. This would allow for another round of edits to address community concerns prior to another vote, if needed. Both the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually.
The Board asks every member of the Wikimedia communities to continue creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and assists good-faith people.
The Board believes these enforcement guidelines, once finalized, will be an important step in encouraging productive work on the Wikimedia projects. The Board hopes that you will step in to review and provide your feedback and thoughts in the vote, so that the ratification process can start with a strong preliminary approach.
On behalf of the Board,
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees.
Chair, Community Affairs Committee.
Shani Evenstein Sigalov https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/
This is mostly a positive development, I think. The overall recognition that the correct way forward is a community vote is excellent, as is the agreement that the community must be able to review and modify the texts in the future. I have a few concerns on the details of the vote: 1. In order to ensure a fair vote, I would recommend that the vote be administered by a group other than WMF T&S, given that T&S would likely be strongly biased toward preferring a particular outcome. Ideally, it would be run outside the WMF entirely, since the WMF is clearly very invested in having this approved. Perhaps the Elections Committee could do it? 2. The 50% threshold, while not entirely without precedent (the licensing update vote also required 50%), is unusual. Depending on the type of policy, thresholds have usually ranged from 60% to as high as 80%, if I'm remembering correctly. This, combined with the unprecedented step of allowing potentially hundreds of non-editor staff to participate in a decision directly affecting the projects, is concerning.
I am worried about the potential for ambiguity and/or confusion following this, especially in the context of the Board's earlier actions in this area. For example, while the WMF and Board have repeatedly suggested that the UCoC is in force (throughout official communications and elsewhere), it is as a matter of simple fact and actual practice, not a policy on the Wikimedia projects. Given that the local projects' administrations do not take instructions from the WMF, and the lack of any community approval of the suggested policy text so far, the only effect of the WMF position (outside of the affairs of the WMF and those inclined to follow the organization's lead) is confusion and doubt about the WMF's cooperativeness. In a matter such as this, clarity is important, and I hope we can have a clear outcome recognized by all. The decision on whether to approve the UCoC and associated enforcement guidelines must be a legitimate community decision, broadly recognized. The Board's statement that it will follow the outcome of a vote is a good thing, but this should be accompanied with actions to ensure that it is a vote that will be recognized as a fair and valid representation of the communities' will.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ב׳, 24 בינו׳ 2022 ב-16:36 מאת Shani Evenstein < shani@wikimedia.org>:
Hello everyone,
(This statement is available on Meta-Wiki for translation and wider distribution)
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees published a statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC supporting a community vote on the proposed enforcement guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct (UCoC).
One of the key recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusionof the strategic goals for 2030 was the collaborative creation of a UCoC to provide a global baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement without tolerance for harassment. The global Wikimedia community must work well together in producing knowledge resources for the benefit of the world. Forging welcoming, inclusive, harassment-free spaces in which people can contribute productively and debate constructively is critical for the movement’s success.
The Board continues to stand by its May 2020 statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces on “Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces” that, “harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision & mission” and to our joint strategic goals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations for 2030.
The ratification of the collaboratively created UCoC last year was a notable milestone, and hopefully the discussion on the ratification process for the collaboratively created enforcement guidelines proposal today will lead to another one.
The enforcement guidelines proposal is a major achievement of thoughtful co-creation for the global communities that took part in the months of consultations, the volunteers leading the drafting committee itself, and the Foundation. The Board is very grateful to the volunteers and staff members who collaboratively co-created first the UCoC itself that the trustees ratified last year, and now the enforcement guideline proposal.
While the UCoC is already in effect, the completion and ratification of the guidelines will allow everyone to begin a period of assessing how they function, in action. We should collectively discover where both the original document and the pathways to enforce it work well and where they need to be improved. Once the guidelines are adopted, communities and the Foundation will begin to collect information on how they are working for the subsequent review of both after a year.
The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines proposal prior to the Board’s own ratification of the final guidelines. Trustees also recognize the support of such a vote expressed by surveyed volunteer functionaries, affiliate members, and the drafting committee.
Based on their input, and aligned with processes used for the Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, all registered Wikimedia contributors who meet minimum activity requirements, affiliate and Foundation staff and contractors (employed prior to 1/17/22), and current and former Foundation trustees, will have the opportunity to vote on the enforcement guidelines proposal in SecurePoll.
A threshold of above 50% support of participating users will be needed to move on to Board of Trustees ratification. If the majority of voters oppose the adoption of the guidelines as written, they will be asked which elements need to be changed and why. This would allow for another round of edits to address community concerns prior to another vote, if needed. Both the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually.
The Board asks every member of the Wikimedia communities to continue creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and assists good-faith people.
The Board believes these enforcement guidelines, once finalized, will be an important step in encouraging productive work on the Wikimedia projects. The Board hopes that you will step in to review and provide your feedback and thoughts in the vote, so that the ratification process can start with a strong preliminary approach.
On behalf of the Board,
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees.
Chair, Community Affairs Committee.
Shani Evenstein Sigalov https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/shani-evenstein-sigalov/
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I'd like to point out that staff members are part of the movement whether or not they initially came from the community ; that, should the UCoC be put in place, they will be subjected to it like everybody else ; and, perhaps more importantly, they are subject to other people's conduct as well.
Maybe this UCoC has implications for other people than for those who don't like it, its wording, or its implementation. Maybe, just maybe, these people can choose for themselves, without there being a puppeteering archvillain controlling them, because they are, just, you know, *people*. Maybe, really, just maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't a puppeteering archvillain.
In simpler terms, not everything they do might be great, that doesn't mean everything they do has to be bad.
Roger / Alphos
Le 30 janv. 2022 à 00:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com a écrit :
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote: Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed one. It was a long time ago.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from six-ish years ago: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed one. It was a long time ago.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
> Shani, > > The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia > employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, > especially in combination with a 50% threshold. > > Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have > attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of > 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to > vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to > push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't > think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding > was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process. > > Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are > not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the > community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot > for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF. > > Could you say something about this? > > Best, > Andreas > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I don't have a problem with WMF staff voting, so long as they meet the community voting guidelines; as Risker notes, many staff members are part of the community. But staffers who do *not* otherwise meet the standard for a community member to vote should not be voting.
Also, the exact wording of how the poll question will be composed is an absolute imperative to be known and debated openly *before* the question is asked. As we know from opinion polls and even state ballot initiatives, it only takes the targeted inclusion or omission of as little as a word or two to turn a poll into a push poll.
Dan
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:59 PM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from six-ish years ago:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed one. It was a long time ago.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me> wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
> Andreas - > > Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else > is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community > remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A > non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of > their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects. > > If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of > the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. > It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an > opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do > affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken > advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff > are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that > way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any > employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is > whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any > individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer > account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name > whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater > potential opportunity to control the outcome. > > Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely > developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; > thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have > been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the > experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer > developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied > to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many > years. > > I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the > SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking > individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to > have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct > Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode > the results once the standard checks are done. > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Shani, >> >> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia >> employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, >> especially in combination with a 50% threshold. >> >> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have >> attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of >> 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to >> vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to >> push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't >> think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding >> was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process. >> >> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and >> are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the >> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot >> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF. >> >> Could you say something about this? >> >> Best, >> Andreas >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Luis,
Gosh, that thread brings back memories, especially seeing Slimmy there. Miss her. (I was doubly sad when I heard the other day that her husband did not survive her by long.)
And my apologies – you did then already what I asked you for now, linking to an earlier non-disclosure agreement used before Lila's time (actually uploaded by yourself, in 2013).
This basically said that staff must not ever, during or after their employment, discuss anything declared "confidential" (whether so declared orally or in writing), on pain of being sued for monetary damages and/or having an injunction taken out against them. That is my layman's paraphrase; the original text is here:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Employment_Agreement_Confiden...
Thanks for the link.
Andreas
On Sunday, January 30, 2022, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from six-ish years ago: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@ lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/# UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed one. It was a long time ago.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me> wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1033011093#I_feel_like_shit [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_ Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia- l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULY IF/?sort=date
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
> Andreas - > > Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else > is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community > remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A > non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of > their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects. > > If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of > the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. > It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an > opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do > affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken > advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff > are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that > way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any > employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is > whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any > individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer > account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name > whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater > potential opportunity to control the outcome. > > Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely > developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; > thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have > been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the > experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer > developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied > to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many > years. > > I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the > SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking > individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to > have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct > Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode > the results once the standard checks are done. > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Shani, >> >> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia >> employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, >> especially in combination with a 50% threshold. >> >> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have >> attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of >> 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to >> vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to >> push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't >> think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding >> was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process. >> >> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and >> are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the >> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot >> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF. >> >> Could you say something about this? >> >> Best, >> Andreas >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >> hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ >> 3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists. >> wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ > QHYUW2MUYYS7ENFIGFG2QUVHMGAKMD2N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists. > wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ H363UINHJHMBIMZ4Q3LLJBRQJ3Q6YIO4/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ W7NXRENOSSZWGRUR5AXP7UPWGFP4HWRF/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/
hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ 3N7PGH4QNZIM25MAOUKH2HMHKEJKOD2E/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ V652IJG3GDYEW72A4BC3SKTX3XJF6Q7Y/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/ hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ HHDS3IFL2UUZPQ3QT5YA3T3YTLZ36FZJ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I had the same reaction! Lots of old memories.
I wonder, did we ever find out if the Lila-era WMF paid lots of ex-employees in exchange for non-disparagement?
Reading through the thread, I find it very confusing how hard people worked to make sure information like that never got out.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 6:41 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Luis,
Gosh, that thread brings back memories, especially seeing Slimmy there.
Dear all,
A few weeks ago I said,
*"... even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, 'Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important.' Or are you saying that could not happen either?"*
An editor has just notified me that canvassing votes from affiliates staff has begun on Meta, much along the lines above – with WMF staffers currently posting on various affiliates' talk pages, asking them to –
*"encourage your staff members to vote ... every vote makes a difference"* .[1]
If the WMF is asking affiliates to encourage their staff members to vote, we can safely assume that it is "encouraging" its own staff to vote as well.
What is wrong with that? After all, the messages say that staff members can vote any way they like.
First off, I think we are all agreed that WMF and affiliate staffers who contribute to the wikis and meet community voting guidelines should be entitled to vote like any other contributor. After all, the outcome of the vote will make a difference to them.
But what is in it for the hundreds of staffers who don't contribute to the wikis?
They are already, by dint of being Wikimedia employees, subject to workplace conduct rules that will continue to apply to them regardless of whether the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines are adopted or not.
So if they are nudged by their managers to participate in the vote, what motivation would they have to oppose anything? None that I can see. However, they would have a very good reason to support, given that the initiative originates from the organisation that directly or indirectly pays their salaries.
To me it seems inevitable that this will produce something other than an unbiased reflection of the community's will.
It will also set a bad precedent for future decision-making, bearing in mind that staff numbers are increasing rapidly, while volunteer numbers are plateauing. As this development continues, the volunteer community will be progressively disenfranchised on all the decisions that matter.
As for the specific issue being voted on – personally, I will not vote in favour of enforcement guidelines for a Universal Code of Conduct that, as written[2],
– classes everyday actions like logging or even just discussing edits from governments or PR companies as "harassment" and "doxing" and – encourages people who have cherished but erroneous beliefs about the world to claim that they are subject to "psychological manipulation" when editors ask them to please stop adding nonsense to articles. There are already enough complaints about editors being evil "gatekeepers" – many of them unfounded – without encouraging people further.
These are just two of the most obvious problems ... and in my view they are a reflection of the fact that the UCoC itself was never subjected to a community vote.
Regards, Andreas
[1] Example: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedians_for_offline_wi... See also https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Ratification+universal+code+co... "every+vote+makes+a+difference"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1&ns3=1&ns5=1&ns7=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns13=1&ns15=1&ns201=1&ns203=1&ns207=1&ns471=1&ns483=1&ns829=1&ns867=1&ns1199=1&ns2301=1&ns2303=1
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:46 PM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, Luis,
Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known.
While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
Andreas
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and beyond the Foundation*.
To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under Katherine.]
There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one.
Luis
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, Alphos,
There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?)
One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here!
As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they were scared.
Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic management culture.
María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2]
Does this inspire anyone with confidence?
Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat.
Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase disputes.
Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board.
The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines".
A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement with the Arbitration Committees.
But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above".
María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... gaslighting.
Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication made in the spirit of a partnership.
The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4]
This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, there is little reason to trust the WMF.
Andreas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellan... [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Tru... [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas -
Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects.
If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater potential opportunity to control the outcome.
Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many years.
I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once the standard checks are done.
Risker/Anne
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Shani,
The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, especially in combination with a 50% threshold.
Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... and then declare it the result of a democratic process.
Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF.
Could you say something about this?
Best, Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org