(after a bit of thinking, I'll post this to foundation-l after all. As a bit of context, the whole fundraiser discussion continued on internal-l and a discussion emerged about disconnect between the board of the WMF and the chapters, of which the letter would be an example. Based on that discussion, I wrote the email below. As far as I am aware, it contains no confidential information, so after consideration, this would be a better place actually) ---- I think we should be honest with ourselves here: yes there is disconnect - but it is not /just/ about the foundation. It is a wider problem than that - but I agree with Dan that this *is* a typical example. Not because of the direction of the decision even (which I totally disagree with as it is explained by Sue, but agree with as it is explained privately by some board members, like noted before) but how it is taken.
I could not have imagined the board changing its bylaws without consulting the community (not asking approval, but consulting) a few years ago. I could not have imagined these important decisions to be taken without serious discussions with those involved. And that someone then notes "we could have discussed it but honestly they wouldn't have changed their mind anyway" (my interpretation) is the most striking for where we are today. Small groups of people sitting in their ivory towers taking decisions. Sure they do their best to come out and talk with people, but it too often fails.
I have seen it too many times. I know of several chapters too, which are malfunctioning because they are not able to connect to the editing community any longer - Wikimedia Nederland has been there too (I hope I'm correct to speak in the past sense). Listening is hard, involving is even harder. I see it with the board even stronger - some individuals are still working hard to engage in conversations, but it is no longer default procedure. Another striking example is that we had to learn about this discussion from Stu's blog - and nobody bothered to involve others in that discussion by sending an email to internal or foundation-l.
It is happening in chapcoms, it is happening in staff (I cannot count anymore how often I got into the position that I have to defend what Sue and several other people in the foundation are doing and the saleries they are alledgedly getting for that) - we all seem to do an extremely bad job in communicating /with/ the community - not /to/ the community. I have been saying this a lot of times during the chapters meeting - but I know there were no foundation people there unfortunately (another example?) so let me repeat it just once more: talking to people will not suffice, will not involve them. We are no priests or teachers that will tell them what to do, but we can motivate them and cooperate with them and be part of it by talking with them, involving them in conversations.
I know it is very hard to actually accomplish it - and I know it is easy to say that you're trying and will try even harder - but that won't be good enough.
Lodewijk
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com Date: 2011/8/11 Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters To: "Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription)" internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Well, I think this entire debate over the fundraising letter is a great example. The board and office seriously miscalculated how strongly the chapters would feel about such a drastic change. I think, frankly, you still do. The "us vs. them" tone of these discussions, especially from some of Erik and Jan Bart's emails, appears to me to be causing people to become defensive and entrenched in their beliefs.
The fact that this is all being done last minute when many these issues were known back as of the 2010 fundraiser* sends the message to me that nobody adequately expressed to the chapters what frustrations the WMF was facing, at least not in any sort of way that would have prompted a thoughtful series of responses like we have seen here.
Then we see things like Jimmy saying "WMF owns Wikipedia" -- something that I believe we have always shied away from saying on ComCom due to the various interpretations of "what does own mean?"; the side dispute with Thomas blaming his chapter for not living up to certain standards that they may or may not have been actually obligated to do….
I should have probably said "In my view, this is an example of a growing disconnect…" because I certainly can't speak for others. But I think broadly looking at this whole debacle, it's hard to see anything BUT a disconnect.**
*(such as the inadequacy of the fundraising agreement; as well I vaguely remember there being several chapters that were not in compliance at some point and we had discussions about it, but it was so long ago and I don't have access to any notes at the time I couldn't say for sure)
*notwithstanding recent alternative proposals and attempts to bridge the gap, of course.
-Dan
I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that I didn't have enough time to read everything.
Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a little digest about the present conflict.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:12, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
(after a bit of thinking, I'll post this to foundation-l after all. As a bit of context, the whole fundraiser discussion continued on internal-l and a discussion emerged about disconnect between the board of the WMF and the chapters, of which the letter would be an example. Based on that discussion, I wrote the email below. As far as I am aware, it contains no confidential information, so after consideration, this would be a better place actually)
I think we should be honest with ourselves here: yes there is disconnect - but it is not /just/ about the foundation. It is a wider problem than that - but I agree with Dan that this *is* a typical example. Not because of the direction of the decision even (which I totally disagree with as it is explained by Sue, but agree with as it is explained privately by some board members, like noted before) but how it is taken.
I could not have imagined the board changing its bylaws without consulting the community (not asking approval, but consulting) a few years ago. I could not have imagined these important decisions to be taken without serious discussions with those involved. And that someone then notes "we could have discussed it but honestly they wouldn't have changed their mind anyway" (my interpretation) is the most striking for where we are today. Small groups of people sitting in their ivory towers taking decisions. Sure they do their best to come out and talk with people, but it too often fails.
I have seen it too many times. I know of several chapters too, which are malfunctioning because they are not able to connect to the editing community any longer - Wikimedia Nederland has been there too (I hope I'm correct to speak in the past sense). Listening is hard, involving is even harder. I see it with the board even stronger - some individuals are still working hard to engage in conversations, but it is no longer default procedure. Another striking example is that we had to learn about this discussion from Stu's blog - and nobody bothered to involve others in that discussion by sending an email to internal or foundation-l.
It is happening in chapcoms, it is happening in staff (I cannot count anymore how often I got into the position that I have to defend what Sue and several other people in the foundation are doing and the saleries they are alledgedly getting for that) - we all seem to do an extremely bad job in communicating /with/ the community - not /to/ the community. I have been saying this a lot of times during the chapters meeting - but I know there were no foundation people there unfortunately (another example?) so let me repeat it just once more: talking to people will not suffice, will not involve them. We are no priests or teachers that will tell them what to do, but we can motivate them and cooperate with them and be part of it by talking with them, involving them in conversations.
I know it is very hard to actually accomplish it - and I know it is easy to say that you're trying and will try even harder - but that won't be good enough.
Lodewijk
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com Date: 2011/8/11 Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters To: "Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription)" internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Well, I think this entire debate over the fundraising letter is a great example. The board and office seriously miscalculated how strongly the chapters would feel about such a drastic change. I think, frankly, you still do. The "us vs. them" tone of these discussions, especially from some of Erik and Jan Bart's emails, appears to me to be causing people to become defensive and entrenched in their beliefs.
The fact that this is all being done last minute when many these issues were known back as of the 2010 fundraiser* sends the message to me that nobody adequately expressed to the chapters what frustrations the WMF was facing, at least not in any sort of way that would have prompted a thoughtful series of responses like we have seen here.
Then we see things like Jimmy saying "WMF owns Wikipedia" -- something that I believe we have always shied away from saying on ComCom due to the various interpretations of "what does own mean?"; the side dispute with Thomas blaming his chapter for not living up to certain standards that they may or may not have been actually obligated to do….
I should have probably said "In my view, this is an example of a growing disconnect…" because I certainly can't speak for others. But I think broadly looking at this whole debacle, it's hard to see anything BUT a disconnect.**
*(such as the inadequacy of the fundraising agreement; as well I vaguely remember there being several chapters that were not in compliance at some point and we had discussions about it, but it was so long ago and I don't have access to any notes at the time I couldn't say for sure)
*notwithstanding recent alternative proposals and attempts to bridge the gap, of course.
-Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that I didn't have enough time to read everything.
Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a little digest about the present conflict.
Maybe they could summarize the discussion among the patricii for the rest of us mere plebs?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 15:15, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that I didn't have enough time to read everything.
Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a little digest about the present conflict.
Maybe they could summarize the discussion among the patricii for the rest of us mere plebs?
Hm. I don't understand it, although I am on internal-l. Problems mentioned here and on internal-l are so general, that I could say that they exist for a couple of years; and that, although problems still exist, things are going better, actually.
So, I am a bit puzzled with the cryptic discussion at internal-l. It looks like something really bad happened recently, while I am not able to understand what it was. I mean, what is so bad now which wasn't that bad or worse a year or so ago?
On 12 August 2011 16:43, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
So, I am a bit puzzled with the cryptic discussion at internal-l. It looks like something really bad happened recently, while I am not able to understand what it was. I mean, what is so bad now which wasn't that bad or worse a year or so ago?
That someone is afraid that it might get much worse very soon and forever, I guess.
Nemo
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 16:43, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 15:15, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that I didn't have enough time to read everything.
Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a little digest about the present conflict.
Maybe they could summarize the discussion among the patricii for the rest of us mere plebs?
Hm. I don't understand it, although I am on internal-l. Problems mentioned here and on internal-l are so general, that I could say that they exist for a couple of years; and that, although problems still exist, things are going better, actually.
So, I am a bit puzzled with the cryptic discussion at internal-l. It looks like something really bad happened recently, while I am not able to understand what it was. I mean, what is so bad now which wasn't that bad or worse a year or so ago?
Oh, the main trigger has been already discussed at foundaiton-l [1]. Something similar on internal-l, as well.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-August/067163.html
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org