Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time to STOP talking.

I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm very much hoping for the best.

I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next time".

Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make positive changes together.

-- brion

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev ruslan.takayev@gmail.com wrote:

Jimmy, et al

As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the removal of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put out there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the state of affairs at the WMF.

Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have done all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.

Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to staff concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.

I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a "knight in shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@ymail.com javascript:;> wrote:

...

Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).

Hi everyone!

I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with a lot of you. I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.

By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope is that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity. And for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from you, to listen and learn.

Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the Foundation, said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to the conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis, and hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful consideration that I remember from 2001."

That's what I want, too. I want to listen and I want to help the board make good decisions.

For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together. It's what keeps us going even in difficult times. But my view is that it doesn't have to be difficult times. Working at the WMF should be - and will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the joy of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.

I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to meet.

I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like to get a good overview.

--Jimbo

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Brion,

I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point of "coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge Engine grant agreement was released, insisted,

Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies as well as your friends. (And in the real world, we are rarely all one or the other.)

-- brion

---o0o---

'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total lie.'

---o0o---

When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days from the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that there really was a search engine project.[1]

How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of other board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy Wales were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).

So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant agreements, had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were about, had never even bothered to look at them?

In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy Wales was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member informed him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?

"Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!

Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the truth, and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck by temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars spreading "bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before shooting his mouth off?

What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is saying?

Andreas

P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ&diff=1...

Andreas

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:

...

Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time to STOP talking.

I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm very much hoping for the best.

I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next time".

Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make

positive

...

changes together.

-- brion

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev <ruslan.takayev@gmail.com

javascript:;>

...

wrote:

...

Jimmy, et al

As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the

removal

...

...

of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put

out

...

there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the state of affairs at the WMF.

Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have

done

...

...

all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.

Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to

staff

...

...

concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.

I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a

"knight

...

in

...

shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@ymail.com

javascript:;

...

...

javascript:;> wrote:

...

Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).

Hi everyone!

I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with

a

...

...

...

lot of you. I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.

By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope

is

...

...

...

that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity.

And

...

...

...

for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from

you,

...

...

...

to listen and learn.

Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the

Foundation,

...

...

...

said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to

the

...

...

...

conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis,

and

...

...

...

hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful consideration that I remember from 2001."

That's what I want, too. I want to listen and I want to help the

board

...

...

...

make good decisions.

For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on

the

...

...

planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together.

It's

...

...

...

what keeps us going even in difficult times. But my view is that it doesn't have to be difficult times. Working at the WMF should be -

and

...

...

...

will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the

joy

...

...

of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.

I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to

meet.

...

...

I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like

to

...

...

...

get a good overview.

--Jimbo

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

javascript:;

...

...

...

Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

javascript:;

...

...

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

javascript:;

...

...

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

javascript:;

...

...

?subject=unsubscribe>

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

?subject=unsubscribe>

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>

Andreas, I think you are being unfair here. Whatever anyone's personal opinion of Jimmy, the bottom line is that WMF staff have expressed that the Board has not been listening to them. Jimmy is a board member. He's directly saying "I'm coming to listen to you". And he's being transparent about it, by sharing his plan publicly on this list and perhaps elsewhere. That pretty much sounds as though he's being responsive. Now, none of us knows what the outcome will be, and I don't think it would be appropriate for any of us to speculate on how various staff members will choose to interact given this direct opportunity. Other board members live in the immediate area and maybe they too will attend (and maybe not, we don't know). This is a very short notice attendance, and since many board members have responsibilities to their employers, families, and other activities, they may not be able to drop everything and jump on a plane, even if they want to.

Myself, I'd suggest that staff take advantage of this opportunity, with the hope of having a more responsive interaction than the November meeting. It is in *everyone's* interest that all of the groups within the Wikimedia community start moving toward better integration, communication, transparency, and carving out a shared vision. This is a step. It's only a step.

As to this hypothetical Wikia connection, it's a speculation by Fae (and only Fae, as far as I can see), who has not provided any evidence that his statement is based on some known information. It may come as a surprise to a lot of people, but Wikia's software has been increasingly diverging from the MediaWiki we all use on Wikimedia projects, and they already have better inter-wiki search than WMF projects have.

Risker/Anne

On 26 February 2016 at 10:02, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

Brion,

I understand you and Jimmy Wales go way, way back. But what is the point of "coming together" with someone who, just hours before the Knowledge Engine grant agreement was released, insisted,

---o0o---

'To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to "be google". It's an interesting hypothetical which has not been part of any serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a total lie.'

---o0o---

When the grant agreement was released -- flatly contradicting his very words, in the view of everyone who read it, including every single journalist who wrote about it -- Jimmy Wales disappeared for four days from the wiki. He eventually resurface and later made an appearance at the Knowledge Engine FAQ on Meta explaining that he had only just learnt that there really was a search engine project.[1]

How plausible is that? By all accounts, James and Dariusz fought to be shown the documents that were later leaked, against the resistance of other board members, which presumably included Jimmy Wales (I don't think it takes too much intelligence to figure out that Guy Kawasaki and Jimmy Wales were among Lila's main supporters and defenders on the board).

So are we to believe that Jimmy Wales had never seen the grant agreements, had never seen those documents that all these arguments in the board were about, had never even bothered to look at them?

In November 2015, board discussions referred to the Knowledge Engine project as a "moon shot", according to James. So all this time Jimmy Wales was ignorant of what this "moon shot" was, until some staff member informed him on February 19 that there really were plans for a search engine?

"Nor even discussed at board level" my foot!

Even if you bend over backwards to assume Jimmy Wales is telling the truth, and he really didn't know anything about this (he might have been struck by temporary deafness during these "moon shot" discussions, after all, or suffered a bout of amnesia), what does it say about him that he blithely went round denouncing people who were telling the truth as liars spreading "bullshit", rather than asking questions and informing himself before shooting his mouth off?

What's the point of talking when you can't believe a word a person is saying?

Andreas

P.S. Now, what is this about Wikia? This is news to me. How would Wikia have profited from the Knowledge Engine? Did anyone plan to include Wikia among the wikis the search engine would prominently surface?

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_Engine/FAQ&diff=1...

Andreas

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Poo has indeed hit fans, as the metaphor goes. But that's hardly the time to STOP talking.

I'll be coming down to the SF office as well next week to talk directly with Jimmy and with any staff (and board members!) who want to plan or brainstorm or vent or just share a moment of "aggghhh!" and I'm very much hoping for the best.

I think there's no expectation of magic resolutions, and Jimmy knows well that there's been mistrust and there remain serious open issues. But this is a rare inflection point, an opportunity to come together and seriously explore how we got to this point and what we can all do to avoid a "next time".

Whatever the outcomes I'm glad to see Jimmy reach out and look forward to some "real talk" and a better understanding of how we all can make

positive

...

changes together.

-- brion

On Friday, February 26, 2016, Ruslan Takayev ruslan.takayev@gmail.com wrote:

...

Jimmy, et al

As yet, we have yet to have coherent believable reasoning for the

removal

...

...

of James Heilman from the BoT, but one of the reasons that has been put

out

...

there (rightly or wrongly) is that James was talking to staff about the state of affairs at the WMF.

Is this trip not the exact same thing that James was alleged to have

done

...

...

all those months ago? i.e. talking to staff.

Why are trustees, including yourself, only now willing to listen to

staff

...

...

concerns? The time for that was BEFORE the proverbial poo hit the fan.

I am seeing the announcement of your trip as nothing more than a

"knight

...

in

...

shining armor" routine, that frankly is too little too late.

Warm regards,

Ruslan Takayev

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales@ymail.com javascript:;> wrote:

...

Here is a note that I just sent to the staff mailing list (stuck in a queue at the moment, so some staff will see it here first.).

Hi everyone!

I am coming to San Francisco on Saturday for a few days to meet with

a

...

...

...

lot of you. I know many of you are not actually in San Francisco, so I'll be sure to set aside time for remote meetings as well.

By now you of course have heard that Lila is leaving us, and my hope

is

...

...

...

that we're going to enter a new era of stability and productivity.

And

...

...

...

for that to happen, the board - including me - needs to hear from

you,

...

...

...

to listen and learn.

Brion Vibber, who I hired as the first ever employee of the

Foundation,

...

...

...

said this to me on Facebook recently: "Jimmy Wales welcome back to

the

...

...

...

conversation. I look forward to how you address the current crisis,

and

...

...

...

hope it will involve the kind of careful listening and thoughtful consideration that I remember from 2001."

That's what I want, too. I want to listen and I want to help the

board

...

...

...

make good decisions.

For me, the mission - a free encyclopedia for every single person on

the

...

...

planet, in their own language - is what brought us all together.

It's

...

...

...

what keeps us going even in difficult times. But my view is that it doesn't have to be difficult times. Working at the WMF should be -

and

...

...

...

will be, I really think - a joy: the joy of working with the best colleagues, the joy of doing work that matters to the world, and the

joy

...

...

of working for the fantastic global community of Wikipedians.

I'll be reaching out to some of you - probably starting with people I already know - but please reach out to me as well if you'd like to

meet.

...

...

I'm in SF from Saturday afternoon through Wednesday evening, so depending on demand, I may not be able to see everyone, but I'd like

to

...

...

...

get a good overview.

--Jimbo

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim boss....someone has to be.

Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get more difficult after Lila and Arnon. The only question is, if the board brings back someone or chooses to promote/move someone around. Food for thought.

Theo

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

#Iamwithrisker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I'm guessing speculation at this point is just moot. The board will be deciding on this, and most likely in silence. If you have candidates, the best way to make their case is to send their names to someone on the board. I'm assuming they will at least announce soon a contact point for such suggestions (likely someoen at a recruitment agency?)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:

Le 26/02/16 16:46, Theo10011 a écrit :

...

Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim boss....someone has to be.

Speechless...

Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get

...

more difficult after Lila and Arnon. The only question is, if the board brings back someone or chooses to promote/move someone around. Food for thought.

Either an interim ED (there are plenty on the market in SF), but I see way more reasons not to go down this route than benefits.

Or getting a current (or ex) C level to be interim deputy whilst the loonnnnnggggg search process delivers its fruits.

Flo

Theo

...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

#Iamwithrisker

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Thanks for considering being the interim CEO Jimmy.

Your visit sounds useful, especially "I want to better understand the outlines of what staff want from their next ED, so that information can be used to help guide the search." Fortunate for the trustees who are less proactive, that they can rely on your visionary guidance at this time, and that you can take questions and speak on their behalf.

I hope you will be able to address nagging concerns about your personal support for keeping the search project a secret last year, and your conflict of loyalties during that process, shortly after your visit. No doubt you will be able to apply your excellent communication skills when engaging with the community to ensure the process stays on your preferred path.[1]

I look forward to the feedback from your visit being posted, Asaf's process sounds like it would be a great opportunity for airing the issues and getting the important ones down in black and white. With this banked, we may all be able to move towards a common understanding of true deep root causes and how they can shifted.

Links 1. https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/jimbotalk-explodes-with-jimbo/

Writing as a committed Wikimedian with no possible conflicts of interest, Fae

On 26 February 2016 at 20:02, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com wrote:

On 2/26/16 3:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

...

Hmm. I wonder if Jimmy is going to be named the interim boss....someone has to be.

No, that isn't going to happen. There has been some staff and board advocacy of it - the idea has been floated - but although I took the idea seriously enough to think about it, I can see that it would not be the best thing. Day to day management is not where I can best add value

• never has been.

--Jimbo

-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

A couple of responses in-line below.

Jimmy, if you would like me to be able to respond to issues on your Wikipedia talk page, let me know. It's been 4 years now since you censored me from writing there, which seems like a long time to hold a grudge.

On 27 February 2016 at 14:39, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com wrote:

On 2/26/16 9:17 PM, Fæ wrote:

...

I hope you will be able to address nagging concerns about your personal support for keeping the search project a secret last year,

Sure - I never supported keeping the proposed and approved work on Discovery and Search secret last year at all. I don't know of anyone who did. The failure to sufficiently disclose happened, but it was not a point that was discussed at the board level to my knowledge. I don't know of any board members, past or present, who think or thought that such things should be kept from the community.

It is my longstanding and continued position that the Foundation should be as open as legally possible with only a very limited degree of non-disclosure, mostly around legal matters and around employee matters. There are a few other examples, too, like price negotiations with vendors, and so on like that. With regard to our long term strategy, I continue to strongly support that everything should not only be disclosed to the community, but that it makes no sense for it to be in conflict with the community, and that very often it should be led by the community in consultation with the Foundation.

As has been raised by others in this email thread, a key core and legally defined duty of the board is to hold your senior management to account. If the board of trustees is out of touch with the Wikimedia community giving "plausible deniability" for a claim that throughout 2015 you thought your management team was being open about the huge (in terms of relative staff numbers) Knowledge Engine / Search Engine project and original Knight Grant application in 2015, even while faced with many public requests for information about the grant and the "secret project", then the WMF board was not competent or meeting its commitment to transparency or basic governance.

Politically your words look good, but they must be able to be demonstrated by action. The claim that you are personally pushing for "the Foundation should be as open as legally possible with only a very limited degree of non-disclosure" does not withstand comparison against the facts. As a trivial example, you have been avoiding the publication of your email to James about his dismissal, yet apparently both you and he are agreed can and should be published. While you are at it, could you copy to me the email(s) about me that you sent to your fellow board members when I was Chair of the Chapters' Association? You have a history of behind the scenes dealing and politicking, when there are no "legal matters" that can apply to your personal views in correspondence, so I am sure you can understand why some of those Wikimedians that have become disillusioned as targets of your non-public criticism or excruciating public criticism without your engagement in a proper process of evidence or a right to challenge, will continue to be sceptical of your ability to lead on openness and transparency, unless you can honestly address those past cases.

...

and your conflict of loyalties during that process, shortly after your visit.

I did not have any conflict of loyalties during that process. Spending a reasonable portion of our IT budget on an ambitious project to improve search and discovery, and to conduct research and community consultation on that, is a great idea for Wikipedia and for the broader Wikimedia movement and I strongly support it.

Again I struggle to reconcile your opinions of your conflict of loyalties, with how the general public would perceive a clearly presented history of your role as an unelected WMF trustee, or effective "trustee for life" as many have called it, with a personal role for CEO selection that you have created for yourself, your part in trustee appointments and the opportunities your regularly have on the board to steer WMF strategy to encourage projects that suit your preferences, with your significant financial interest in Wikia, Inc., your past experience with "Wikia Search" and how the WMF Knowledge/Search engine development would fulfil Wikia's strategy for selling more commercial services, selling Wikia user data and making a greater profit from targeted advertising.[1] However I'll nail this down a bit more in a separate thread as assessing the public perception of your potential conflict of loyalties is worth having multiple views on, rather than just your opinions or mine.

Links: 1. "Take advantage of Wikia's custom research solutions to achieve campaign objectives, including brand lift studies, target audience insights, and more!", "Reach the right audience with the right message using Wikia's multitude of targeting opportunities, including demographic, psychographic, geographic, contextual, genre, devices, conquesting, and more!" http://www.wikia.com/mediakit

Thanks, Fae

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:39 AM, GorillaWarfare gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

I would be curious to hear precisely what you hope to accomplish from your trip to San Francisco. How do you plan to communicate what you learn to the rest of the Board of Trustees, and to those who will be instrumental in shaping the changes that will happen to the WMF in the near future? How do you plan to speak to staff members, who have seen many of their coworkers leave or be forced out in the last few years? How do you plan to increase morale among an incredibly demoralized group?

I too hope that your return will be marked by "careful listening and thoughtful consideration" that Brion Vibber describes, not to mention strong actions resulting from what you learn during your trip. But quite frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I hope that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear reassurance that you realize this is necessary.

There have been many things that have not impressed me recently: how the Wikimedia Foundation chose to handle the lack of transparency surrounding WMF actions (even once they were leaked), how the Board has handled the past unrest surrounding the Executive Director and senior leadership, communication surrounding James Heilman's removal... the list really goes on and on.

I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial, or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

I would very much like to know the answer to this question, in particular. Any conversation with staff should be based first and foremost on honesty, after everything that has happened.

I would also like to hear a clear statement about what you think can be gained from your return to San Francisco.

Thank you, Molly White User:GorillaWarfare English Wikipedia community member _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com wrote:

On 2/26/16 10:39 AM, GorillaWarfare wrote:

...

frankly, Vibber's communications with the Wikimedia community outside of the Foundation have far surpassed yours in clarity and transparency. I

hope

...

that you will improve upon your messaging, but I would like clear reassurance that you realize this is necessary.

Yes, this is necessary. I'm continuing to push for more disclosure and more openness.

Who's resisting?

In particular, as I have been reflecting on all this, I realized that I was much closer to Sue and much more involved in her "on boarding" and learning about our culture. I think I failed Lila in this regard - we talked from time to time, but I didn't do enough to help her understand.

Don't beat yourself up over it. Unlike the days of Sue's onboarding, when Lila came in there was an abundance of experienced staff with significant community experience to help immerse her in the culture and to continually offer advice, guidance, or point out pitfalls. This was readily and repeatedly on offer. It was repeatedly rejected outright, and occasionally heard out and ignored, apparently without rationale. (I think it's absolutely fine, of course, to hear out the advice or perspective of experienced staff and to decide to act otherwise, with rationale -- even if not stated explicitly.) I can supply concrete examples, but at this point, it is done, and it would be better to focus on principles and on rebuilding.

I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for people new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of voices and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain no matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication. If you don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters, you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... ambiguous even in the best of times.

That's certainly true. But again: help with that was available. It was discounted.

So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get a better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have, so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED, and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.

Excellent. I encourage all my colleagues to make the most of this opportunity. I think it would be ideal if, in addition to allow people who strongly prefer that to meet with him 1:1, we strive to meet with Jimmy as teams or otherwise as groups, both to optimize time and make sure almost everyone can be heard, and to create multi-perspective conversations accompanied by note-taking.

I look forward to seeing you here soon, Jimmy.

A.

If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy can be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting, video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that the transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF to exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the videos could be widely accessible inside of WMF. I think that the videos would be instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and other Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons learned and opportunities for organizational development.

Pine

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com wrote:

...

I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for people new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of voices and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what, with little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain no matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication. If you don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters, you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... ambiguous even in the best of times.

So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to San Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by more visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get a better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people have, so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim ED, and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.

Jimmy,

A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know; stopped clocks and all that).

A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5 basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of the problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal to give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed, some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or "chronic complainers" were eminently justified.

When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.

I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use, within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.

(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)

[0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2... [1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Just a quick note:

* some of the big staff conversations are indeed being very carefully note-taken or recorded internally. We are being very careful to plan and communicate how open they will be ahead of time and keep them both honest and not scary. I would not expect them to be made public (the ones made so far will definitely not because we already told people they were private to staff, and people have to be able to trust us on this stuff.)

* There is also a big need for private conversations, which means many/most of these talks won't be recorded and definitely would not be made public in detail. Many won't feel comfortable in a recorded conversation. Many still won't feel comfortable in a large group that's not recorded. Many still won't feel comfortable in a small group conversation. And others still won't feel comfortable opening up in a 1:1 private conversation with someone in a power position at their employer.

* it's also important to remember that people are individuals and have different experiences. Not everyone interprets or experiences the same events or in the same way. Some staff members are not comfortable expressing their experiences and feelings because they feel different from those speaking more loudly, or found the recent internal and public discussions more directly traumatic to themselves than what they experienced during the previous administration -- in which case a more private environment helps avoid the concern about feeling out of lock step or being treated as an ignorant outsider for not having shared the same issue.

I think it's very important to have all of those levels of conversations, and distill and spread around the core issues, fears, hopes in a way that's safe, fair, and useful. And honestly I'd prioritize safe and fair over useful in some respects.

Totally agree that facilitated conversations can be useful. There's at least some informal stuff going on but I hope we have some more purpose-designed facilitated discussions too.

And I think some of us *would* love to have public talks about making things better -- such as those of us posting here. But that's going to be very distinct from what I think we're looking at this week.

-- brion On Feb 26, 2016 4:13 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a record of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making them all public is not desirable.

Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a skilled professional facilitator or mediator, who has no stake in the outcome, can be an incredibly helpful in getting the maximum benefit from difficult discussions. I hope that the WMF has considered hiring such a person for Jimmy's visit, and to address any number of other aspects of the present challenges.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy

can

...

be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting, video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that the transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF to exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the

videos

...

could be widely accessible inside of WMF. I think that the videos would

be

...

instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and

other

...

Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons learned and opportunities for organizational development.

Pine

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com

wrote:

...

...

I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for people new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of

voices

...

...

and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which ones are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what,

with

...

...

...

little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain

no

...

...

...

matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication. If

you

...

...

don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it matters, you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... ambiguous even in the best of times.

So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit to

San

...

...

Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by

more

...

...

...

visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get a better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people

have,

...

...

...

so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim

ED,

...

...

...

and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.

Jimmy,

A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know; stopped clocks and all that).

A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5 basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of the problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal to give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed, some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or "chronic complainers" were eminently justified.

When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.

I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use, within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.

(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)

[0]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2...

...

...

[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least some staff.

I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR, if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized* comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to inform the discussions about the future.

I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial for WMF in the rebuilding phase.

Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.

If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.

Pine

It would be a good thing if the Board and current or expected interim ED loosened up confidentiality on the employees.

It helps internal morale and external confidence in reforms.

George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: I admit to being surprised by the depth of the division between the ED and staff that we are hearing about. Thanks to the Signpost and internal leaks we in the community knew about the low marks in the staff survey, but I guess I didn't appreciate that the situation involved more than widespread professional disagreement and had reached such emotional depth for at least some staff.

I would like to ask Brion, who seems to be acting as the de facto VP of HR, if he could ask people if they are willing to have their *anonymized* comments and notes be published. I think that these would be helpful to inform the discussions about the future.

No, he's not. Don't get me wrong, Brion's help is TREMENDOUSLY valuable and appreciated. But please recognise that you only see things from the outside. Your understanding of what is going on, absent internal discussions, is likely to be somewhat distorted. Brion is one of the more preeminent volunteers for emotional support but he is not acting without HR also acting.

...

I fully understand that people may feel comfortable venting and connecting about this situation in private. I am trying to respect that private space while also encouraging a flow of information that I hope will be beneficial for WMF in the rebuilding phase.

The WMF's rebuilding is ultimately WMF-centric.

There are elements with movement-wide components; reform of the board of trustees, which is also supported by a lot of staff, is a good example. But much of it is internal, private, and only fully understood with an NDA. It's why so many people have been able to gut-punch employees over the last few months: because there are a lot of things where, even anonymised, we cannot say anything.

Given that I would prefer not to risk compromising the healing with publicly-shared transcripts, even anonymised ones. This is not to say that public feedback and review and transparency isn't welcome and needed: it is. Merely that this should not come from the commentary of individual meetings.

...

Brion, thank you very much for taking on this role as staff facilitator.

If a professional facilitator would help as well, I'd say to go for it.

We already have one, and have for months.

...

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information is cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will prompt WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency, openness, and values alignment.

Pine

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information is cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will prompt WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency, openness, and values alignment.

Pine

While on a base level I agree with you I feel its important to add some caveats to that. I think a good portion of this is actually everyone needing a better understanding about what 'is' expected to be private (and preferably why) from Management on down. I think a lot of what people are calling "under the NDA" may not be :).

I also think it's important to consider the categories of private data/information too, however, because i fear we (both the staff and the community) use "under NDA" as a very broad and note always accurate description. The way I see it there is:

1. Private WMF Data or information that is most definetly covered by the NDA: examples include most donor data, attorney-client privileged information, information that is legally protected, information we protect via official public policy etc. 2. Information and notes that really don't need to be private: This is the stuff we're talking about releasing. 3. Inter personal/team discussions and similar.

[sorry, this turned out tldr, apologies. TLDR: Careful demanding sharing of internal team discussions]

3. I actually think is really important because it is not what we think of when we think of private information (and, honestly, probably isn't under the NDA usually) but can be very important to be kept privately even if the end result of the discussion should be made public etc.. This is especially true to allow open conversations between staff members. Not only do they need to feel comfortable bringing up crazy idea A (which some are now and could probably be done more with culture change, possible on both the community and WMF sides) but they need to feel comfortable saying that crazy idea A is crazy and bad for reasons X,Y and Z.

Lodewijk made my main point well in the thread about Lawrence Lessig: People get very uncomfortable talking about others in public. If Staff member B is breaking apart Staff member A's proposal there is a good chance at least one of them is going to be feeling very uncomfortable about it. That discomfort often gets much bigger the more people who see what's happening either because they feel more shame (to pick just one of the emotions you can feel in that type of situation) or because they feel like they're doing more shaming then they want to do. That expanded discomfort can make them significantly less likely to do any number of things we don't want: get more defensive/less willing to change, be less wiling to propose those bold ideas that could be really great (or not), be less willing to speak out against the bad ideas etc.

The other reason is another one that I imagine we're all familiar with on wiki: The more people who pile on in one direction (even if it's only 2-3 frequently) (and in my experience the more public that discussion) the less likely people are going to be to oppose what the direction those initial commentators/voters/blah went. Suddenly people feel like they need to defend their opinion much more then they would otherwise or that they could be faced with angry opposition. These concerns are certainly possible on internal teams and mailing lists (the WMF Staff list is somewhat famous for people being afraid to pile on after a lot of people went the other way and I know some, including me, are trying to change that) but they become more and more of a concern the wider that audience becomes and publishing those discussions is a VERY wide audience.

I think that publishing the Discovery Team meeting with lila recently was a right and proper move but I also think it was likely an exception to the rule. Seeing people disagree so strongly and publicly with one of their regular colleagues could very well scare away those colleagues and we don't want that.

James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

Anthony has hit the nail on the head here with "could be used to punish or intimidate staff"; the reason I, at least, am uncomfortable talking about the internal details here (beyond the obvious PR elements for the Foundation) is that there's a lot of ongoing fear about repercussions. A couple of years ago this wouldn't have been the case.

(This also indirectly answers the "can we see your NDA?" question. I don't know. And hell, I'm this scared having *already quit*.)

More guidance, and public guidance at that, would be deeply appreciated. Within the Discovery Analytics team we've gone out of our way to write up pretty all-encompassing guidelines specifically for data (which I look forward to being able to publish pretty soon - we just got clearance to do so). It would be nice to have more firm guidance on what we should do with transparency around other kinds of information. It would, of course, be even nicer if we could rebuild trust, since that's the source of a lot of the fear.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:

It's not just NDAs that constrain you, staff. The WMF code of conduct https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_policy (that applies to staff and trustees) reads,

"People acting on the Foundation’s behalf must respect and maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information they have gained due to their association with the Foundation. This may include personal information about community members or members of the general public, and/or information about the internal workings of the Foundation or its partners or suppliers."

"Information about the internal workings of the Foundation" is extremely broad and vague, and could be used to punish or intimidate staff who talk openly about anything. Perhaps you could add "some" ("some information about the internal workings of the Foundation") and leave it to the individual NDAs to specify what "some" means. Or perhaps you could just be specific in the code of conduct.

Anthony Cole

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:51 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information

is

...

cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will

prompt

...

WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency, openness, and values alignment.

Pine

While on a base level I agree with you I feel its important to add some caveats to that. I think a good portion of this is actually everyone needing a better understanding about what 'is' expected to be private (and preferably why) from Management on down. I think a lot of what people are calling "under the NDA" may not be :).

I also think it's important to consider the categories of private data/information too, however, because i fear we (both the staff and the community) use "under NDA" as a very broad and note always accurate description. The way I see it there is:

1. Private WMF Data or information that is most definetly covered by the

NDA: examples include most donor data, attorney-client privileged information, information that is legally protected, information we protect via official public policy etc. 2. Information and notes that really don't need to be private: This is the stuff we're talking about releasing. 3. Inter personal/team discussions and similar.

[sorry, this turned out tldr, apologies. TLDR: Careful demanding sharing of internal team discussions]

3. I actually think is really important because it is not what we think of

when we think of private information (and, honestly, probably isn't under the NDA usually) but can be very important to be kept privately even if the end result of the discussion should be made public etc.. This is especially true to allow open conversations between staff members. Not only do they need to feel comfortable bringing up crazy idea A (which some are now and could probably be done more with culture change, possible on both the community and WMF sides) but they need to feel comfortable saying that crazy idea A is crazy and bad for reasons X,Y and Z.

Lodewijk made my main point well in the thread about Lawrence Lessig: People get very uncomfortable talking about others in public. If Staff member B is breaking apart Staff member A's proposal there is a good chance at least one of them is going to be feeling very uncomfortable about it. That discomfort often gets much bigger the more people who see what's happening either because they feel more shame (to pick just one of the emotions you can feel in that type of situation) or because they feel like they're doing more shaming then they want to do. That expanded discomfort can make them significantly less likely to do any number of things we don't want: get more defensive/less willing to change, be less wiling to propose those bold ideas that could be really great (or not), be less willing to speak out against the bad ideas etc.

The other reason is another one that I imagine we're all familiar with on wiki: The more people who pile on in one direction (even if it's only 2-3 frequently) (and in my experience the more public that discussion) the less likely people are going to be to oppose what the direction those initial commentators/voters/blah went. Suddenly people feel like they need to defend their opinion much more then they would otherwise or that they could be faced with angry opposition. These concerns are certainly possible on internal teams and mailing lists (the WMF Staff list is somewhat famous for people being afraid to pile on after a lot of people went the other way and I know some, including me, are trying to change that) but they become more and more of a concern the wider that audience becomes and publishing those discussions is a VERY wide audience.

I think that publishing the Discovery Team meeting with lila recently was a right and proper move but I also think it was likely an exception to the rule. Seeing people disagree so strongly and publicly with one of their regular colleagues could very well scare away those colleagues and we don't want that.

James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Dear Brion, your comments in this thread were wonderfully clear. Thank you. On Feb 26, 2016 8:15 PM, "Brion Vibber" bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:

Just a quick note:

• some of the big staff conversations are indeed being very carefully

note-taken or recorded internally. We are being very careful to plan and communicate how open they will be ahead of time and keep them both honest and not scary. I would not expect them to be made public (the ones made so far will definitely not because we already told people they were private to staff, and people have to be able to trust us on this stuff.)

• There is also a big need for private conversations, which means many/most

of these talks won't be recorded and definitely would not be made public in detail. Many won't feel comfortable in a recorded conversation. Many still won't feel comfortable in a large group that's not recorded. Many still won't feel comfortable in a small group conversation. And others still won't feel comfortable opening up in a 1:1 private conversation with someone in a power position at their employer.

• it's also important to remember that people are individuals and have

different experiences. Not everyone interprets or experiences the same events or in the same way. Some staff members are not comfortable expressing their experiences and feelings because they feel different from those speaking more loudly, or found the recent internal and public discussions more directly traumatic to themselves than what they experienced during the previous administration -- in which case a more private environment helps avoid the concern about feeling out of lock step or being treated as an ignorant outsider for not having shared the same issue.

I think it's very important to have all of those levels of conversations, and distill and spread around the core issues, fears, hopes in a way that's safe, fair, and useful. And honestly I'd prioritize safe and fair over useful in some respects.

Totally agree that facilitated conversations can be useful. There's at least some informal stuff going on but I hope we have some more purpose-designed facilitated discussions too.

And I think some of us *would* love to have public talks about making things better -- such as those of us posting here. But that's going to be very distinct from what I think we're looking at this week.

-- brion On Feb 26, 2016 4:13 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

...

I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a

record

...

of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making

them

...

all public is not desirable.

Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a

skilled

...

professional facilitator or mediator, who has no stake in the outcome,

can

...

be an incredibly helpful in getting the maximum benefit from difficult discussions. I hope that the WMF has considered hiring such a person for Jimmy's visit, and to address any number of other aspects of the present challenges.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

If I may make an even bolder proposal: these chats with Brion and Jimmy

can

...

be, with the consent of everyone involved in each particular meeting, video-recorded. Asking for the videos to be posted in public might be a step that's too uncomfortable for some people (although I think that

the

...

...

transparency would be refreshing and in the long run I would like WMF

to

...

...

exercise this degree of transparency), but I at least hope that the

videos

...

could be widely accessible inside of WMF. I think that the videos

would

...

be

...

instructive for the interim executive director, Human Resources, and

other

...

Board members to see, and might be helpful in discussing lessons

learned

...

...

and opportunities for organizational development.

Pine

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com

wrote:

...

...

I can't speak for Lila, nor should I try. But I know that for

people

...

...

...

...

new to our world, it's really quite confusing. You hear a lot of

voices

...

...

and if you've been around for long enough, you get to know which

ones

...

...

...

...

are important and which ones are going to complain no matter what,

with

...

...

...

little substance. If you listen to those who are going to complain

no

...

...

...

matter what, you can end up fearful and burned by communication.

If

...

...

you

...

...

don't listen to those who are only going to complain when it

matters,

...

...

...

...

you'll miss important things. Knowing the difference is... well... ambiguous even in the best of times.

So to go back to your question - what can be gained from my visit

to

...

...

San

...

...

Francisco... it's only for a few days, but it will be followed by

more

...

...

...

visits in the coming months. And part of what I want to do is get

a

...

...

...

...

better understanding of the specific concerns that serious people

have,

...

...

...

so that I can be more helpful to whoever ends up being the interim

ED,

...

...

...

and whoever ends up being our next permanent ED.

Jimmy,

A word of advice on language (from me, of all people. Yes, I know; stopped clocks and all that).

A substantial number of staff at the Foundation have spent the last few months in utter, miserable hell. Not in an abstract way, not watching it from the sidelines (I've spent kind of a lot of time wishing I was a volunteer in the last 6 months :/) but on a 9 to 5 basis, going into a space that has been deeply unpleasant, for the sake of the mission. Part of this unpleasantness - a small part of

the

...

...

...

problem, but a uniquely insidious and damaging part - was a refusal

to

...

...

...

give more than lip-service to the concerns of some employees. Indeed, some employees were actively warned, or prohibited from speaking, due to how they chose to raise concerns;[0][1] And in the end, increasing transparency revealed that the concerns of "disruptive" employees or "chronic complainers" were eminently justified.

When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only

the

...

...

...

concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.

I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming

that

...

...

...

it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to

use,

...

...

...

within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015.

I

...

...

...

of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.

(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)

[0]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2...

...

...

...

[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 2/27/16 12:15 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:

When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and have a lot to tell you.

I completely agree with this - let me remind the context of my remark.

For employees dealing with the community, particularly new employees, there can be a lot of WMF-bashing and employee bashing that really hurts. People who have been around for a long time tend to come to an understanding about people's ways of communicating and personality styles. This means that it's possible to understand that person A (a person who habitually makes accusations and doesn't assume good faith) screaming about something means something very different from person A (a person who generally doesn't make drama and who tries to see the best in things and people).

We had some disastrous rollouts of bad software in recent years. This has led, in my view, to a kind of vicious cycle - a loss of trust in the Foundation means that people view new developments with a hostility that is often excessive. Employees who get beaten up over such things tend to find it very unpleasant, particularly in those cases (we've all seen examples) where the attacks get personal. ("This software is buggy" not easy to hear, but is an ok and honest remark. "These developers are idiots and the WMF is yet again trying to attack and destroy the community" is very likely to give rise to a fear and also a disinterest in engaging. That's not good.

I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one of those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch out for.

You are right on both points!

--Jimbo

With all due respect to Lila's work, but IIRC before she started working for Foundation, it was said that the technology background was very important, but communication could be a problem. That may have been disregarded because the choice was already made or because volunteers complain about everything anyway.

We saw improvements on technology at the expense of hiding things from community or using [super]force on its implementation. A topic suggestion is to discuss when volunteer community became a barrier on Foundation plans and how to deal with that peacefully.

Sincerely wishing useful meetings to staff and sending good vibes from the volunteer/spectator part of the whole thing.

Em sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2016, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org escreveu:

+1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.

The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.

Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday *when we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward thinking.

Still, we've all been through something quite significant and we need a lot of care and feeding. This isn't to say that we can't have contentious discourse (I, for one, love to battle it out on ideas), but I think we would all really appreciate it if you step lightly. It's been really intense and I am no delicate flower.

Further, although there are a variety of temperaments and responses to what happened, there is very little disagreement that the right decision was finally made. Actually, I have yet to find any disagreement--only deep relief. I have not spoken to everyone, but I have connected with and listened to a lot of people. So the idea that there are (or were) just a small group of consistent complainers, is not what I have seen and I have been on the ground the entire time. In fact, I saw the opposite. I saw people go out of their way, extend AGF beyond any reasonable application, and then arrive at a similar, if not identical, conclusion.

There appears to have been a story that has succeeded (and been actively perpetuated) in some circles for some time. It's a story that paints staff as change averse luddites. It may have been told in a slightly more friendly manner in public, but that is the thesis if you dig into it. It was top notch spin, but it's not true.

The really powerful and disarming story about what's actually going on inside? We are a thriving group of capable and principled people coming together to do right by a mission and community that we are genuinely devoted to. And that is the only part of what's recently happened that feels really, really good.

I believe that staff have proven themselves to be legitimate stakeholders in this movement. We are worthy of your respect. We are worthy of the movement's respect.

Warmly, /a

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:

...

On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <ironholds@gmail.com

javascript:;> wrote:

...

...

When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.

I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use, within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.

Seconded all this from Oliver.

To Jimmy: we've been doing Wikipedia and Wikimedia a long time, you and

I.

...

:) And in that time we've both learned good and bad habits.

One of those bad habits is known as "setting the bozo bit" in old school geek culture: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit

Tuning out the concerns of people because they often disagree makes our

own

...

lives easier on the short term, but at best it's a risk that you'll lose useful feedback, and at worst you can alienate people who could have

become

...

allies on some other topic... Or helped you avoid a sticky situation they saw coming that you didn't.

It's something I've tried very hard to get away from when I interact with other developers and users. And sometimes it's really hard. But a lot of the people I unset the bit from are now doing amazing things... Some of them now work for you as WMF developers and managers, and I'm glad I

didn't

...

mistreat them early on.

When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and

have

...

a lot to tell you.

This is the time to listen honestly even (especially?) to those whose narratives mismatch your own.

I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one

of

...

those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch out for.

Your staff is still raw and suspicious all around; the word "trauma" gets used with total sincerity. We'd really appreciate care in how you

describe

...

what's happening; it'll go a long way to making the next few days and the further discussions you're planning to make really useful.

-- brion

...

(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)

[0]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2...

...

...

[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

...

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

?subject=unsubscribe>

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;

?subject=unsubscribe>

...

-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

+1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.

The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.

Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday *when we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward thinking.

This is great! I am glad to hear it.

One thought. Given that it is a complex situation, with many individual reactions and experiences as Brion points out, I wonder if it would be good for the organization to appoint a temporary, but on-site, omsbud who could listen to staff needs (...and those of contractors, and those working closely with staff).

I'm imagining someone who could both be a sounding board outside of current structures, and who could assist any interim ED -- who themselves will likely not have enough to time to do all of this and also run the organization. An omsbud could triage issues: from those requiring changes in process or even Board attention to those that can be dealt with in other ways. And they could provide a place for those who simply want to vent or discuss can do so. Ideally it would be someone respected, empathetic and open, and with channels and influence at a high level, but not someone with too much history at the organization -- especially not recent history.

I suggest this because I worry about the emotional load on people at the WMF who others turn to the most -- people who are respected and empathetic and thus have no doubt gotten a lot of extra work to do in listening to their colleagues in recent months. I worry about people who don't feel like they have anyplace to turn. And I worry that the official structures in place to report areas where change is needed may not be sufficient given large-scale dissatisfaction.

I think Jimmy's heart is absolutely in the right place for wanting to listen to staff and I commend him for it, and for doing what many of the other trustees are likely logistically unable to do right now. But even he doesn't have enough time or energy to be at the WMF for a few months, and calmly help facilitate the organizational processing that seems like needs to happen. I think that needs to be a separate, actual position, even if just for a brief period. And ideally, such a position would not get in the way of but rather be able to facilitate and sustain the self-generated group dynamic of support and energy for forward momentum that Anna describes.

I think this is a fantastic suggestion. We currently have an Employee Relations person, but an Ombudsman (who was actually promised to staff last year) has yet to appear.

To perpetuate Anna's pattern of thankfulness, I am very very thankful that internally these are issues we have actively begun to discuss: both the need for specialist help with recovery (HR has been very good at this) and the emotional cost of people taking on the role of "toxin handler" without it being in their JD, and without it being recognised as real work.

-- Phoebe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and allow them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well throughout our entire history.

Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.

Phoebe

"I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR. What I am reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially, *once used to be*."

You're exactly right, Asaf. That's what I meant. Thank you for the clarification.

/a

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and

allow

...

them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well

throughout

...

our entire history.

Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.

I don't think what Anna described requires "a build-out" of HR. What I am reading is a description of what HR should *already be*, and, crucially, *once used to be*.

I second Anna (who, by the way, *is* one of those "people other people turn to", or "unappointed toxin handlers" mentioned) in everything she said. If the board would choose to pay attention, it would find new behaviors in HR that veer away from our values, and that occasionally violate WMF's own stated policies. (one quick example: formally censuring an employee [not me] without their direct manager present, or even informed.)

I encourage looking into this, and doing whatever is necessary to "renew the heart of HR".

A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Jimmy,

I have a ridiculous amount of respect for you and what you have accomplished. I have watched from afar (I was living a lot in other countries) as this radical experiment in trust *exploded* on to the world. It blew my mind. And some of the early rules that were set were nothing short of genius (e.g. NPOV, AGF and due weight come to mind). It was an ideal experiment: an open frontier with simple, limited rule sets. And the icing on the cake is that "citation needed" ended up not just influencing how I thought about an encyclopedic text, but how I thought about discussing ideas.

Anna,

Hold on just a moment. :)

It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the things you speak of alone.

First of all, the person who originally had the idea for Wikipedia was Larry Sanger.[1] Jimmy Wales reportedly thought at the time people would find the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit "objectionable".[2]

But he let Sanger try it. That it "took off" was a surprise to everyone at the time!

Sanger coined the name "Wikipedia"[3] and invited the first contributors.[4] Sanger wrote Nupedia's Non-bias policy, the precursor to NPOV, but Jimmy Wales made important input to the NPOV policy later on, in particular the "due weight" principle.[5]

Sanger was Wikipedia's editor-in-chief in its early days, and had far more hands-on involvement in guiding the development of the project in its childhood. (Jimmy Wales made just 21 edits to Wikipedia in the year 2002, according to his edit history, while Sanger made hundreds.)

"Assume good faith" was created by Morwen in March 2004. I'm not aware that Jimmy Wales had any role in its creation (he was hardly around on-wiki in the months prior to March 2004).

So let's not forget that Wikipedia has always been the work of many people. :) That includes its fundamental policies.

So it is from that genuine respect base that I disagree with you on this particular point:

"> I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is

...

clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be

beneficial,

...

or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak.

I supported it with sadness. The whole thing is a sad train wreck."

I do not think this is a train wreck. I think this is one of the hottest moments since this genius encyclopedia exploded onto the world.

People are engaged.

Here I wholeheartedly agree with you. :) One of the best things to have come out of this is that there are bonds between volunteers and staff that have never been there before. These are exciting times.

Best, Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20030414014355/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/n... [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20030414021138/http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/n... [4] http://web.archive.org/web/20010506042824/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History

Anna,

That too is largely due to volunteers. In early February 2002 for example, Jimmy spoke of putting advertising on Wikipedia, saying on the Wikipedia-l mailing list:[1][2]

---o0o---

However, with the ongoing hard times in the Internet economy, we do anticipate adding some forms of advertising to the site in the near future.

---o0o---

The result of these plans being aired on the mailing list was a user revolt.

The entire Spanish Wikipedia community jumped ship: they forked and created their own project, the Enciclopedia Libre. It took the Spanish Wikipedia years to catch up with and overtake EL.

Edgar Enyedy, one of the leaders of that revolt, shared his reminiscences with Wired's Nathaniel Tkacz in 2011:[3]

---o0o---

[...]

*The clash that led to your departure from Wikipedia was sparked by a seemingly insignificant remark, made by Sanger in passing about the possibility of incorporating advertising in order to fund his future work on the encyclopaedia(s). His exact words were, "Bomis might well start selling ads on Wikipedia sometime within the next few months".[4] Can you revisit this event and tell us how it unfolded? *

The possibility of advertising was out of the question. I asked Wales for a public commitment that there would be no advertising, but this only came after we left. Apart from those already mentioned (Sanger's role and the autonomy of the Spanish version) there were other points of disagreement.

Firstly, all Wikipedia domains (.com, .org, .net) were owned by Wales. I asked myself "why are we working for a dot com?" I asked for Wikipedia to be changed to a dot org.

[...]

Because of these things, I didn't trust Wales' intentions. Not at all. We were all working for free in a dot com with no access to the servers, no mirrors, no software updates, no downloadable database, and no way to set up the wiki itself. Finally, came the possibility of incorporating advertising, so we left. It couldn't be any other way.

I would like to remark upon the fact that as it is known today, the International Wikipedia that you all know and have come to take for granted, might have been impossible without the Spanish fork. Wales was worried that other foreign communities would follow our fork. He learnt from us what to do and what not to do in future.

---o0o---

It's an interesting article, and a fascinating bit of Wikipedia history. At one point, Jimmy Wales apparently envisaged selling hard copies (!) of the encyclopedias; hence the GNU/FDL licence.

The point is, user revolts have always been a significant part of making Wikipedia what it is today.

This includes its being an ad-free non-profit.

Andreas

[1] Feb. 2, 2002 mailing list post by Jimmy Wales: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001279.html [2] http://larrysanger.org/2011/01/jimmy-wales-on-advertisement/ [3] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork/viewal... [4] Feb. 13, 2002 mailing list post by Larry Sanger: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-February/001444.html

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

Andreas,

...

It's important to understand that Jimmy Wales didn't accomplish the

things you speak of alone.

Yes, I'm aware of this. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was pointing to the fact that Jimmy did not mess it up. I don't ever underestimate that. Jimmy could have not allowed that to happen, he could have charged money, he could have done a lot of other things, and he did not. He did not mess it up and that is really saying something.

Warmly, /a

J'habite au Canada et rien ni personne ne peux ou ne veux porter respect et compassion aucune Limite. Un monde assoiffé de vengeance, méchanceté aucune reconnaissance .

Je suis véronique Michaud Only Bye Le 27 févr. 2016 2:37 PM, "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com a écrit :

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Before adding another layer of process and reporting and complexity structurally, we should more likely try to renew the heart of HR and

allow

...

them to work with Legal in partnership as they had done so well

throughout

...

our entire history.

Fair, and I certainly appreciate this. To be clear my idea is only for a temporary position -- only a few months at most, really -- and could certainly happen concurrently with such a build-out of HR.

Phoebe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 2/29/16 2:25 AM, Molly White wrote:

Thank you for your reply, and I apologize for how late this one is. When I asked how you intend to speak with the Board of Trustees and with staff, I did not mean what technical means you will use. It doesn't much matter to me whether you speak with them in person, over email, over Hangouts, or what have you.

Ah, ok. :) I wondered why it mattered but thought I'd just answer plainly in case you were concerned that not doing it in person would fail to convey nuance, etc. (A valid concern, always.)

I am instead concerned with how (and if) you will be able to clearly communicate your discussions between these two groups, since you are apparently the one doing so.

I'm not the only one. Alice is here in San Francisco, too.

Perhaps more concerning to me: do you intend to take steps to make WMF staff comfortable speaking to you? If so, what are these steps? As Oliver and others have made clear, staff have gone through what sounds like an extended, traumatic period. I think the mass exodus of staff members makes that very clear. Some have spoken of intimidation about speaking up with their concerns. How will you ensure they don't feel the same around you?

Sure. It's a potentially tough problem, and likely made worse by a lot of misconceptions being thrown around by people who have misrepresented my views. It's been claimed, for example, that I was the chief architect of a concept that staff shouldn't talk to board members - overcoming that misunderstanding is important to me.

I am not involved at all in hiring and firing decisions, and don't intend to become so involved. I'm not becoming the interim ED nor the permanent ED. I've been here from the beginning and I am very passionate about Wikipedia and our mission. I have no specific axe to grind other than that one.

My heart is heavy about what has happened here, and one of the things that I feel most heavy about - and that I've heard from staff - is that I lost touch with them. I remember driving to the November board meeting thinking "Well, this is going to be fairly routine and boring" because I had no idea what awaited me there - which was a train wreck of a meeting which left millions more questions than answers but which made it clear that something big was going on.

In my reporting back to the board, and in future discussions with the interim ED and permanent ED, I intend to report generally and as NPOV as I can on what I've learned. I don't intend to name names, as that's not really relevant. I won't be making any hiring or firing recommendations, as I'm not in a position to even begin to evaluate people on that level.

Intimidation about speaking up is a terrible and perverse thing to happen in any organization. If that's a feeling that the organization has had, I want to put forward the idea that it's over. If I were moving into the ED position, it would be my first priority - to root that out. It's devastating. Work life shouldn't be about that - it should be about the mission, about everything we have all be dreaming of and working toward and enjoying for all these years.

And it will be one of the qualities that I'm looking for in any interim and permanent ED - a sense that they will build a creative, nurturing, bold workplace. And I also think we absolutely need to build in mechanisms for structured, professional, facilitated thoughtful feedback from the staff directly to the board is a regular thing.

In short, there is no reason for anyone to be afraid to talk to me.

But, I should note, I've had a huge response to my offer to meet with people, and as far as I can tell checking with people who know more people than I do, I'm getting a nice mix of people - noisy ones, quiet ones, angry ones, satisfied ones.

On 2/29/16 7:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

A few days ago, Oliver Keyes said[1] here on this list that, even though he had already quit his job, he was scared to share with people the content of the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign as a WMF staff member.

Do you believe the various non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses that staff have to sign to work at the WMF should be public? Will you encourage staff to share their content, in the interests of transparency?

I don't know, as I haven't seen those. If there is a standard boilerplate non-disclosure agrement that all staff sign (normal practice) then I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be made public. I also don't see much reason *for* it to be made public, if it's just the usual sort of thing. I don't see that it matters much either way, to be frank.

In some cases, employees will be bound by specific nondisclosure agreements with partner organizations that bind the Foundation. I would not say that publishing the details of those makes sense. Let me give a purely hypothetical example for the sake of clarity.

Suppose we negotiate with a vendor to buy some hardware and manage to get a great discount because the vendor loves Wikipedia. The vendor might say, hey, look, I can only give this discount to Wikipedia, and it would hurt my competitive position in the marketplace if the price I'm giving you were well known. So they'll say, hey, I can give you this discount, but only under a nondisclosure agreement.

I wouldn't support publishing that nondisclosure agreement.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikia-inc.com wrote:

...

On 2/29/16 7:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

...

A few days ago, Oliver Keyes said[1] here on this list that, even though

he

...

had already quit his job, he was scared to share with people the content

of

...

the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign as a WMF staff member.

Do you believe the various non-disclosure agreements and

non-disparagement

...

clauses that staff have to sign to work at the WMF should be public? Will you encourage staff to share their content, in the interests of transparency?

I don't know, as I haven't seen those. If there is a standard boilerplate non-disclosure agrement that all staff sign (normal practice) then I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be made public. I also don't see much reason *for* it to be made public, if it's just the usual sort of thing. I don't see that it matters much either way, to be frank.

Well, there's been enough interest in this over the years to justify it. It would quell speculation.

As you are currently in SF, it should be fairly easy to arrange for someone to post the standard, boilerplate non-disclosure agreements/non-disparagement clauses that (1) staff and (2) management have to sign here on this list, or lets us know where we can find them on the WMF website.

If universities and commercial companies are able to do that, so should WMF.

It's worth noting that publishing the current standard != publishing what people have signed. The document has varied a lot over the years (I helped tweak/copyedit some of the volunteer NDAs a few years back, hence paying attention to this). I would really love if whatever the latest version of the NDA is, everyone re-signed, to avoid ambiguity here. At the moment what people are prohibited from doing varies depending on when they joined the organisation.

The current staff NDA, interestingly, I can't find on the Office wiki. The volunteer NDA is there, but even I don't know what the current staff one is (I may just be missing a link, or having a bad search experience, which given the team I work for would be a weird kind of funny). The version I signed, way back when, both prohibited me from disclosing confidential information and contained a non-defamation clause around the organisation and its legal agents.

Now, I have no idea if this is still in the staff contract and NDA. I sincerely hope it's not. But I hope people recognise that a clause prohibiting staffers from saying a class of things about C-levels in public, when most staff are not lawyers, is by definition going to have a chilling effect on conversations about organisational direction and staff performance. Sure, that class of things may in fact be totally unacceptable and actually not things that we'd say...but how the heck are we to know that?

So I support the idea, at a minimum, of publishing the current NDA and contract form, and I would really like it if legal could bring all staff NDAs up to spec.

One thing that was discussed early on that would also be fantastic; the whistleblower policy currently protects people for reporting *legal* violations to the *government*, and nothing else. Given that California is an at-will state, broadening this would be...I was going to say nice but really I mean "essential to any transparent organisation that wants processes resistant to one bad apple".

I agree with Dariusz on this, and have 2 additional thoughts:

1. I'm not sure that Silicon Valley organizations as a whole are more secretive than many NGOs. Some are famously super secretive - Apple. Others are not really - Automattic (Wordpress). Some NGOs tend to be very controlling of messages, and some not so much.

2. The overall point, I think, is that we should make sure that employee agreements are on the open end of the spectrum. F/L/OSS movements and organizations tend to be much more open than other organizations. We're a strongly community-driven movement *about the free sharing of knowledge* - so our culture means we need to push openness to a point that most organizations would find bewildering.

--Jimbo

On 2/29/16 7:26 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

Do you believe the various non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses that staff have to sign to work at the WMF should be public? Will you encourage staff to share their content, in the interests of transparency?

There are different ways to perceive the WMF and different benchmarks to relate to. If we perceive the WMF as a Silicon Valley, high-tech organization, that just happens to be organized as an NGO, and is contemporarily relying on an open collaboration in a community of editors (until the machines can substitute them), then surely good benchmarks will be other Silicon Valley organizations, and using the industry standard non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements make sense.

I believe that we are something else. We are a social movement, and the WMF is a mission-driven NGO, that has its top competence in supporting the open knowledge community, and happens to be pretty good at legal and tech support, too. But tech has a supportive, not leading role. We, theoretically, could outsource a lot of tech, but we could not outsource a lot of community work.

Therefore I believe that better benchmarks would be other rights- and access-oriented NGOs (Amnesty International? Soros Foundation?), F/L/OSS movement (Apache Foundation? EFF?), and universities (Oxford? Harvard? Sorbonne?). By understanding these benchmarks, we can build adequate standards of transparency, and follow suit in legalese. I believe that a lot of our current tensions stem basically from not formulating the fundamental vision of who we are and who we want to be.

dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:

So my concern is not that you lost touch with staff. I don't particularly care about any one person. My concern is that the *board* did. My concern is that when staff reached out the Board replied with a letter indicating they had full and unanimous confidence in our leadership. You indicating that you see a problem here and have some sympathy is nice; so is you visiting the office. So is Alice visiting the office. But nice is not sufficient.

Guy Kawasaki, I believe, lives in the bay area (correct me if I'm wrong). Denny works a 10 minute walk from the office. Kelly's org is based in Mountain View. There are a whole host of trustees who could be making it into the office, experiencing the culture and the sentiment and the concerns directly. Why are they not coming in? Why are they not listening to people?

I must confess that this was my initial response as well.

My initial impression of Jimmy coming to SF was that this was a self-selected PR exercise for Jimmy – borne out of a desire to be seen as part of the solution of the problem, rather than part of its causes – and not so much an effort by the Board to develop a better rapport with staff.

As you say, there are several board members who could comfortably pop in for afternoon tea at the WMF office any day of the week.

Still, I hope the discussions with Jimmy and Alice in SF are fruitful.

While I appreciate, deeply, both you and Alice coming in, I am unable to shake my concerns that the rest of the board making decisions informed not by their perspectives but by your recollection of your perspectives, is going to be tremendously limiting. We selected these people because we thought they had something to contribute we didn't already have: because their experiences would shape incoming information in new and interesting ways. So let them receive that information, and let them shape it. Let's have an informed board. Because trust isn't great, right now, and this last year should have made us steer *away* from processes with a small bus factor, not towards them.