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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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 &lt;ruslan.takayev(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: out in the joy meet. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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=… Andreas On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Brion Vibber &lt;bvibber(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: positive removal done staff "knight a is And you, Foundation, the and board It's and to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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

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?

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.

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

Le 26/02/16 16:46, Theo10011 a écrit : Speechless... Finding an ED is a long painful process, something that is bound to get 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)ymail.com&gt; wrote: 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%… [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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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]

[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

* 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.

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

From my perspective: so, as well as a prohibition on sharing anything

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

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

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: is prompt 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(a)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" &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: record them skilled can the to would learned people ones If matters, to a the to the that use, I https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%… https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: be jalexander(a)wikimedia.org&gt; information odds provides transparency, (and are the is sharing of of under the especially and chance like discomfort don't propose on 2-3 less could for and more those was a don't https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes" &lt;ironholds(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%… https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

+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.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: yesterday *when forward 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. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: allow throughout 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.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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.

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 beneficial, 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.

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

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

On 2/26/16 9:17 PM, Fæ wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)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 3:06 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)wikia-inc.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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?

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.