Dear members of the WMF Board of Trustees,
I’ve been following the recent events silently - from the voting out of James Heilman, to the unfortunate timing of recruiting Arnnon Geshuri and the lack of clear, timely communication around WMF strategy in in general and specifically around the so-called “Knowledge Engine” grant, received by the Knight Foundation.
Even more alarming to me, is the slew of exceptional community-facing employees who left (or are leaving) the Foundation, accompanied by muffled sounds of discontent from staying Foundation employees.
I’m breaking my silence because I’m very concerned. My concerns stem from my past experiences with facilitating strategic changes and my experience in grantmaking - both in and outside of the Movement.
I’m concerned because it’s evident that the Foundation is undergoing a deep, strategic change. But this change is not accompanied by the required transparency, honesty and accountability required by the Foundation in order to truly transform in a way that's beneficial for the organization and its community.
I’m concerned, because while the “Knowledge Engine” grant provides only a specific example, it underlines a larger picture that is disturbing: concealment (rather than openness) as a default, lack of consultation with the community and weak, general communication around important matters only after bad press. I also suspect that the vocal members of the community are right, and that a $250K grant is not the issue, but it part of a bigger move that will require significantly more resources for the Foundation to implement.
Lastly, I’m concerned because all this stirs no clear communication from the Board of Trustees. A Board of Trustees implies there should be trust between the Board and its constituents. I suspect this isn’t the case anymore.
If any APG-receiving affiliate conducted itself in such a non transparent, dishonest manner and with lack of clear, timely communication with its community and stakeholders, it would get seriously reprimanded by the Foundation: its board audited, its budget cut, etc. Expecting the Foundation to be held to a lower standard than any of its worldwide affiliates is just hypocritical.
I urge the Board of Trustees - Don’t forget that the community of volunteers and affiliates is a major stakeholder of the Wikimedia Foundation - and many of us are concerned. I think the community deserves to better understand where the Wikimedia Foundation is going, and get honest answers about the changes in the organization, for us to be trusting again. Please start communicating clearly about those topics.
With utmost respect,
Ido (AKA AlleyCat80)
Board Member, WMIL
Member, Simple APG & GAC.
Hi Ido, your email is interesting and reveals an important issue: the governance of a no for profit organization is a little bit different from that of a "commercial" company.
In my opinion there is an unclear definition of the stakeholders and the definition of the importance of these stakeholders and the relations they have.
Missing a clear definition of these entities and how they are related and what kind of potential conflicts can be generated by them, it can only drive to the current picture.
Kind regards
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:04 AM, ido ivri idoivri@gmail.com wrote:
Dear members of the WMF Board of Trustees,
I’ve been following the recent events silently - from the voting out of James Heilman, to the unfortunate timing of recruiting Arnnon Geshuri and the lack of clear, timely communication around WMF strategy in in general and specifically around the so-called “Knowledge Engine” grant, received by the Knight Foundation.
Even more alarming to me, is the slew of exceptional community-facing employees who left (or are leaving) the Foundation, accompanied by muffled sounds of discontent from staying Foundation employees.
I’m breaking my silence because I’m very concerned. My concerns stem from my past experiences with facilitating strategic changes and my experience in grantmaking - both in and outside of the Movement.
I’m concerned because it’s evident that the Foundation is undergoing a deep, strategic change. But this change is not accompanied by the required transparency, honesty and accountability required by the Foundation in order to truly transform in a way that's beneficial for the organization and its community.
I’m concerned, because while the “Knowledge Engine” grant provides only a specific example, it underlines a larger picture that is disturbing: concealment (rather than openness) as a default, lack of consultation with the community and weak, general communication around important matters only after bad press. I also suspect that the vocal members of the community are right, and that a $250K grant is not the issue, but it part of a bigger move that will require significantly more resources for the Foundation to implement.
Lastly, I’m concerned because all this stirs no clear communication from the Board of Trustees. A Board of Trustees implies there should be trust between the Board and its constituents. I suspect this isn’t the case anymore.
If any APG-receiving affiliate conducted itself in such a non transparent, dishonest manner and with lack of clear, timely communication with its community and stakeholders, it would get seriously reprimanded by the Foundation: its board audited, its budget cut, etc. Expecting the Foundation to be held to a lower standard than any of its worldwide affiliates is just hypocritical.
I urge the Board of Trustees - Don’t forget that the community of volunteers and affiliates is a major stakeholder of the Wikimedia Foundation - and many of us are concerned. I think the community deserves to better understand where the Wikimedia Foundation is going, and get honest answers about the changes in the organization, for us to be trusting again. Please start communicating clearly about those topics.
With utmost respect,
Ido (AKA AlleyCat80)
Board Member, WMIL
Member, Simple APG & GAC. _______________________________________________ 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 Ido. For what is worth, and in my personal capacity (I'm not affiliated with Wikimedia Italia any more) I completely second your concern, Discussions are ongoing from months now and BoT seems frozen in silence. People really don't understand why.
I would also like to thank you for expressing it in such a delicate, polite but clear tone.
Aubrey
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ido, your email is interesting and reveals an important issue: the governance of a no for profit organization is a little bit different from that of a "commercial" company.
In my opinion there is an unclear definition of the stakeholders and the definition of the importance of these stakeholders and the relations they have.
Missing a clear definition of these entities and how they are related and what kind of potential conflicts can be generated by them, it can only drive to the current picture.
Kind regards
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:04 AM, ido ivri idoivri@gmail.com wrote:
Dear members of the WMF Board of Trustees,
I’ve been following the recent events silently - from the voting out of James Heilman, to the unfortunate timing of recruiting Arnnon Geshuri and the lack of clear, timely communication around WMF strategy in in general and specifically around the so-called “Knowledge Engine” grant, received
by
the Knight Foundation.
Even more alarming to me, is the slew of exceptional community-facing employees who left (or are leaving) the Foundation, accompanied by
muffled
sounds of discontent from staying Foundation employees.
I’m breaking my silence because I’m very concerned. My concerns stem from my past experiences with facilitating strategic changes and my experience in grantmaking - both in and outside of the Movement.
I’m concerned because it’s evident that the Foundation is undergoing a deep, strategic change. But this change is not accompanied by the
required
transparency, honesty and accountability required by the Foundation in order to truly transform in a way that's beneficial for the organization and its community.
I’m concerned, because while the “Knowledge Engine” grant provides only a specific example, it underlines a larger picture that is disturbing: concealment (rather than openness) as a default, lack of consultation
with
the community and weak, general communication around important matters
only
after bad press. I also suspect that the vocal members of the community
are
right, and that a $250K grant is not the issue, but it part of a bigger move that will require significantly more resources for the Foundation to implement.
Lastly, I’m concerned because all this stirs no clear communication from the Board of Trustees. A Board of Trustees implies there should be trust between the Board and its constituents. I suspect this isn’t the case anymore.
If any APG-receiving affiliate conducted itself in such a non
transparent,
dishonest manner and with lack of clear, timely communication with its community and stakeholders, it would get seriously reprimanded by the Foundation: its board audited, its budget cut, etc. Expecting the Foundation to be held to a lower standard than any of its worldwide affiliates is just hypocritical.
I urge the Board of Trustees - Don’t forget that the community of volunteers and affiliates is a major stakeholder of the Wikimedia Foundation - and many of us are concerned. I think the community deserves to better understand where the Wikimedia Foundation is going, and get honest answers about the changes in the organization, for us to be
trusting
again. Please start communicating clearly about those topics.
With utmost respect,
Ido (AKA AlleyCat80)
Board Member, WMIL
Member, Simple APG & GAC. _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
Hi,
2016-02-18 11:44 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com:
Thanks Ido. For what is worth, and in my personal capacity (I'm not affiliated with Wikimedia Italia any more) I completely second your concern, Discussions are ongoing from months now and BoT seems frozen in silence. People really don't understand why.
I would also like to thank you for expressing it in such a delicate, polite but clear tone.
strong +1
Thanks Ido for your thoughtful email, which I wholeheartedly support. I like very much your email because it voices what I think many Wikimedians are feeling but may not be keen on expressing themselves publicly.
2016-02-18 9:04 GMT+01:00 ido ivri idoivri@gmail.com:
I’m concerned because it’s evident that the Foundation is undergoing a deep, strategic change. But this change is not accompanied by the required transparency, honesty and accountability required by the Foundation in order to truly transform in a way that's beneficial for the organization and its community.
I share this concern completely.
The only thing I would add to what Ido said is: is there a way that we - as a community - could help?
Remember that the community is not only a shareholder but also the greatest asset we have.
Cristian
On 18 February 2016 at 09:04, ido ivri idoivri@gmail.com wrote:
If any APG-receiving affiliate conducted itself in such a non transparent, dishonest manner and with lack of clear, timely communication with its community and stakeholders, it would get seriously reprimanded by the Foundation: its board audited, its budget cut, etc. Expecting the Foundation to be held to a lower standard than any of its worldwide affiliates is just hypocritical.
The principle of the WMF being a good role model for its affiliates - and living up to minimum standards that it sets for those affiliates - is one of the primary reasons that the FDC recommended the WMF submit its next Annual Plan to the same APG system.[1]
This FDC recommendation was built into a full proposal WMF Community Resources team,[2] and this proposal was accepted by the WMF leadership - as described by Luis during the January Metrics Meeting.[3]
This, means that there will at *least* the same level of detail required from the WMF in annual planning documents, and the same timeline of public consultation upon those documents. Alongside Wikimedias Armenia, France, Norway and also CIS, the WMF will be providing an Annual Plan by April 1 on the central application page on Meta.[4]
During the 1 April to 30 April community review period,[5] everyone will be encouraged to thoroughly investigate those documents. Obviously, the scale of the WMF plan will be larger and (hopefully) more detailed than would be required from an affiliate. As a member of the FDC myself, I will be heavily relying on the analysis of the community to help identify areas that are of concern or are unclear.
So, during the month of April, I strongly encourage everyone to help with the analysis of the next WMF annual plan!
-Liam
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_rou... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_2016-17_Annual_Planning_Recommendation [3] Starting at 19:40. https://youtu.be/GpZOx1Mzmuk?t=19m40s One crucial difference will be that the FDC will be making recommendation based on its analysis, but *not* be providing a recommendation in terms of actual dollars. [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round_2 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information#Calendar
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
18.02.2016 7:25 AM "Liam Wyatt" liamwyatt@gmail.com napisał(a):
The principle of the WMF being a good role model for its affiliates - and living up to minimum standards that it sets for those affiliates - is one of the primary reasons that the FDC recommended the WMF submit its next Annual Plan to the same APG system.
Yes, I'm glad that after several years of championing the idea within the FDC and to the Board, we have succeeded in making it finally happen.
During the 1 April to 30 April community review period,[5] everyone will be encouraged to thoroughly investigate those documents.
And the community can do much more here than in the previous years, where feedback was quite minimal.
As far as I'm concerned, I've often times repeated that I believe that WMFs main source of competitive advantage is the relations with the communities and our unique symbiosis. Content is not our competitive advantage, as it is free to copy by anyone, and in technology we're years behind the curve (the same goes for design, structures, etc.). But collaboration with our communities is something that makes us at least as good as the giants of the Internet industry (remember Google's failed community-driven encyclopedia? Case in point).
We need to get a grip, have more transparency, but also more bidirectional support, and start thinking about the future (I'm not saying this to sound as "nothing to watch, move on", but to restore some perspective and proportions). There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly.
Wow, thank you Ori. +1 to everything you said.
That line from Dariusz disappointed me to, but I just chalked it up to just another case of a board member downplaying community/staff concerns and plea for help.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
Indeed - thank you Ori on behalf of the entire technical organization.
Dariusz - I'd ask that you consider the assumptions that you listed in your email more closely. Ori, myself and others would be very happy to work with you this.
-Toby
On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Moiz Syed msyed@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wow, thank you Ori. +1 to everything you said.
That line from Dariusz disappointed me to, but I just chalked it up to just another case of a board member downplaying community/staff concerns and plea for help.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Ori Livneh <ori@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Moiz Syed msyed@wikimedia.org wrote:
That line from Dariusz disappointed me to, but I just chalked it up to just another case of a board member downplaying community/staff concerns and plea for help.
it has not been my intention to downplay the amazing work WMF staff or thousands and thousands of our editors do. When I wrote that we "almost forget how unique we are" I only wanted to counter the occasional negativism, present on this list.
I have utmost respect to the armies of hidden (as well as visible!) champions in our movement :)
dj
I must echo Ori.
We have some brilliant, brilliant people who really are doing some fantastic work. The trouble is that as Brandon Harris has already confirmed on the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. People are looking to leave. Actively.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
Second Asaf and Sydney. Please take these concerns seriously. If you truly *respect* us and this movement, please act.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
I must echo Ori.
We have some brilliant, brilliant people who really are doing some fantastic work. The trouble is that as Brandon Harris has already confirmed on the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. People are looking to leave. Actively.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- Seddon
*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)* *Wikimedia Foundation* _______________________________________________ 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
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now.
I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind, like you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out among each other. And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does not *really* matter. People screw up, but this is a movement. And this movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and commitment to the amazing community we serve.
If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction. Just to be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so much.
People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have been watching, even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive, and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to continually endure.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now.
I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind, like you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out among each other. And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does not *really* matter. People screw up, but this is a movement. And this movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and commitment to the amazing community we serve.
If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction. Just to be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so much. _______________________________________________ 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
Also, +1 to Ori.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com wrote:
People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have been watching, even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive, and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to continually endure.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now.
I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind, like you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out among each other. And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does not *really* matter. People screw up, but this is a movement. And this movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and commitment to the amazing community we serve.
If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction. Just to be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so much. _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you so much for chiming in, Gayle. This means a lot. בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 10:17, "Gayle Karen Young" gaylekaren@gmail.com כתב:
People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have been watching, even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive, and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to continually endure.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu dandreescu@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now.
I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind, like you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things out among each other. And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does
not
*really* matter. People screw up, but this is a movement. And this movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection and commitment to the amazing community we serve.
If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction. Just
to
be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this email, I just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so
much.
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
Ori,
Your email was spot on. And it is so refreshing to hear someone speak the truth about who we are as staff.
In my time running Org Dev, I saw incredible talent here at the Foundation, across departments, including members of the C-team. And as the situation has become progressively more chaotic, I've seen *everybody* level up. I've seen individual contributors and managers take on new challenges, new departments, grow their skills, learn how to trust one another and have each other's back, and find ways to grapple with our most important problems. In the absence of an org strategy and to side step the chaos and omnipresent conflicting information and confusion on the ground, departments have been getting together and charting their own way. I am inspired by the work I've seen my colleagues do *in spite of the dysfunction at the top*.
And as far as our "toxic culture"... don't believe the hype. I've actually seen our collective dialogue *improve* in the last two years and in the last year I've seen my colleagues show tremendous restraint in incredibly chaotic times of intense stress. Don't get my wrong, we have work to do, but we're heading in the right direction.
I don't at all believe it when I hear that there is not enough leadership at the Foundation. *I see leaders across this organization.* *I see untapped talent everywhere I look* that is finding ways to contribute despite land mines, roadblocks, and seriously hard-core motivational zappers everywhere.
My colleagues inspire me. And thank you so much for sharing that wise perspective, Ori. It made my week.
Rock on,
/a
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Thank you so much for chiming in, Gayle. This means a lot. בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 10:17, "Gayle Karen Young" gaylekaren@gmail.com כתב:
People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and
its
volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no
one
can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues
goes
a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have been
watching,
even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to
go
in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt
unsupported
and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation
to
create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive, and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people
to
continually endure.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Dan Andreescu <
dandreescu@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now.
I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind,
like
you say - despite the dysfunction at the top, to stay and talk things
out
among each other. And to realize that the dysfunction at the top does
not
*really* matter. People screw up, but this is a movement. And this movement, as you point out, has not screwed up.
I hope we talk, fix the problems, and grow stronger in our connection
and
commitment to the amazing community we serve.
If anyone is feeling despair, please talk to me first, we have all the reason in the world to channel our effort in a positive direction.
Just
to
be clear, I admire Ori for his intelligence and for writing this
email, I
just hope he's wrong that people will leave this place that I love so
much.
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
People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have been watching, even in pain and at a distance, the enormous toll it takes for people to go in day after day and keep doing their work when they have felt unsupported and unheard by the leadership, the board, and the movement, and uncertain of the strategy of the organization - and even worse, characterized as being the wrong people on the bus, so to speak - that this turnover is "normal" and part of leadership transition. This is not normal.
I sincerely apologize for minimizing that pain, it was not my intention but I can see how what I wrote can be seen this way. This is not normal, and even if it was normal, it would still be awful.
Dysfunction at the top does matter. It sets the tone for what is
permissible in the organization. It is part of the leadership obligation to create an organizational and systemic environment in which people thrive, and feel aligned to the mission and the values of the organization. When that is absent, the resulting toxicity is downright unfair to ask people to continually endure.
I again apologize, this time for not expanding on what I meant by *really* matter. The dysfunction of course *matters*. It hurts a lot of people, people I love, and that's why I can't just sit by idly.
I think I was trying to say that we can get past this. That we're bigger than this. That our united voice is stronger than the dysfunction, by far.
I know, Dan, and your commitment and willingness to look at what is amazing and holding WMF together, your personal decision to seek ways out of a victim mentality and looking forward, is also absolutely critical right now.
I would like to second what Ori said and add:
and in technology we're years behind the curve
I think this is a reductive view of the technology at WMF. It is true that many systems have been around in name for a long time, but that doesn't mean they haven't been evolving under the hood (as Ori describes) to scale with demand at the same (or better) pace as our trendier peers (who are often married to fly-by-night technologies). In an era of 10s pageloads hauling megabytes of trackware, WP's stats are actually pretty stellar.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Casey Dentinger cdentinger@wikimedia.org wrote:
and in technology we're years behind the curve
I think this is a reductive view of the technology at WMF. It is true that many systems have been around in name for a long time, but that doesn't mean they haven't been evolving under the hood (as Ori describes) to scale with demand at the same (or better) pace as our trendier peers (who are often married to fly-by-night technologies). In an era of 10s pageloads hauling megabytes of trackware, WP's stats are actually pretty stellar.
True, by all means. But my point (clumsily phrased) was that we will not likely be considered more technologically advanced than Google or Apple, while we really ARE more proficient in terms of the social systems and community collaboration. My only regret is that we way too rarely reiterate how amazing we are. The fact that we do a lot of great tech stuff, too is a reason to celebrate (and my apologies to anyone who read my comment as disparaging our work there).
Let me put it this way: it is great we have the tech as robust and advanced as it is. This is awesome. Let's also recognize the fact that our communities, working together with the WMF, is something unique, to avoid the narrow vision of "evil foundation" vs. "unreasonable and random crowd".
dj
Hi Dariusz,
I want to share with you the following relatively scattered thoughts and leave it to you to decide how to continue engaging with us. :-) I hope you find them helpful:
* BoT has been too silent, given the state of matters. I'm much more worried about our volunteers when I say this, than the WMF's staff (which I'm one of).
* You engaging in this list has been a breeze for me. I know at least someone from the BoT is reading these emails and is engaging. Thank you for that. :-)
* Because of the lack of clear communications by the BoT, I'm uncertain whether there is an acknowledgement by the BoT about the issues we are facing. What can assure me at the moment is to see a list of items the BoT sees as problematic, and a plan for addressing them, and a schedule for when we should expect seeing them addressed. (Half-jokingly: maybe we need a phabrictor board for the BoT to track specific tasks that can be shared publicly and their prioritization).
* Although I really appreciate you engaging in this list, I see that in the absence of more frequent official communications from the BoT, what you say in this list is interpreted as a strong signal from the BoT, and it is held to the standards we expect to see when we communicate with a Board member. This means that if you are not specific and even more careful with your choice of words, you will hear strong criticism, just because words/statements can be interpreted differently depending on the context we are operating in.
* I'm asking you to continue communicating with us in your capacity as a Board member, and I'm also asking you to be very very careful with your choice of words and statements. Trust me: I know what I'm asking you is extremely hard. So, here is what I offer you: I assume good faith in what you say and please reach out if I can be of help.
Ido, Ori, thank you for your emails. They help us be stronger, and move in the right direction.
Leila
Leila Zia Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Casey Dentinger <cdentinger@wikimedia.org
wrote:
and in technology we're years behind the curve
I think this is a reductive view of the technology at WMF. It is true that many systems have been around in name for a long time, but that doesn't mean they haven't been evolving under the hood (as Ori describes) to scale with demand at the same (or better) pace as our trendier peers (who are often married to fly-by-night technologies). In an era of 10s pageloads hauling megabytes of trackware, WP's stats are actually pretty stellar.
True, by all means. But my point (clumsily phrased) was that we will not likely be considered more technologically advanced than Google or Apple, while we really ARE more proficient in terms of the social systems and community collaboration. My only regret is that we way too rarely reiterate how amazing we are. The fact that we do a lot of great tech stuff, too is a reason to celebrate (and my apologies to anyone who read my comment as disparaging our work there).
Let me put it this way: it is great we have the tech as robust and advanced as it is. This is awesome. Let's also recognize the fact that our communities, working together with the WMF, is something unique, to avoid the narrow vision of "evil foundation" vs. "unreasonable and random crowd".
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 2016-02-18 21:20, Leila Zia wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
I want to share with you the following relatively scattered thoughts and leave it to you to decide how to continue engaging with us. :-) I hope you find them helpful:
- BoT has been too silent, given the state of matters. I'm much more
worried about our volunteers when I say this, than the WMF's staff (which I'm one of).
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that if things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or money runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have ten active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation is unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to all kinds of events.
- Because of the lack of clear communications by the BoT, I'm uncertain
whether there is an acknowledgement by the BoT about the issues we are facing. What can assure me at the moment is to see a list of items the BoT sees as problematic, and a plan for addressing them, and a schedule for when we should expect seeing them addressed. (Half-jokingly: maybe we need a phabrictor board for the BoT to track specific tasks that can be shared publicly and their prioritization).
This is a cool idea. It is a pity it has zero chances to be realized.
Cheers Yaroslav
I disagree Yaroslav, 1- This affects Wikipedia indirectly. When downtime goes up alongside with editing time, we will lose users. New users won't stay, etc. it damages new user retention and therefore, the viability of the project in the long term. 2- Wikipedia is up because of its editors but also because we have a huge infrastructure around it. A simple example: A hypothetical buggy release of mediawiki due to lapses of inexperienced staff (because we lost experienced ones let's say for a similar incident in the future) can lead to a huge security breach and losing a huge amount of trust. This damage can't and won't be fixed. 3- Staff and editors are not totally separated, living in a different world. It's a chain filled by volunteer organizers and volunteer developers. People who are active in chapters, technical projects etc. If staff lose their trust in WMF, all other members of the chain will fall afterwards. A simple example: pywikibot is being maintained entirely by the volunteers but some of them are staff in their volunteer capacity. We lose them, then we lose other maintainers of pywikibot and then eventually bots will fail to run what do you think if we don't have any bots in wikis, especially small wikis? Think of GLAM. Reach out programs, etc.
A note: These are extreme cases. I hope they will never happen.
Best
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:22 AM Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-02-18 21:20, Leila Zia wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
I want to share with you the following relatively scattered thoughts and leave it to you to decide how to continue engaging with us. :-) I hope you find them helpful:
- BoT has been too silent, given the state of matters. I'm much more
worried about our volunteers when I say this, than the WMF's staff (which I'm one of).
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that if things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or money runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have ten active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation is unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to all kinds of events.
- Because of the lack of clear communications by the BoT, I'm uncertain
whether there is an acknowledgement by the BoT about the issues we are facing. What can assure me at the moment is to see a list of items the BoT sees as problematic, and a plan for addressing them, and a schedule for when we should expect seeing them addressed. (Half-jokingly: maybe we need a phabrictor board for the BoT to track specific tasks that can be shared publicly and their prioritization).
This is a cool idea. It is a pity it has zero chances to be realized.
Cheers Yaroslav
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
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem is that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of the latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even if Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant choices have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that if things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or money runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have ten active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation is unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to all kinds of events.
There are certain things that affect many volunteers directly. A slightly off-topic example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59608#1637250
The fact that:
"the WMF education team has no engineering resources"
...affects volunteers.
Sincerely, Yury Bulka (Wikimedia Ukraine)
Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net writes:
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem is that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of the latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even if Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant choices have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that if things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or money runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have ten active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation is unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to all kinds of events.
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
Yury, this is a very important example, but indeed off-topic. It deserves a separate thread, but not before addressing the current main crisis, which all others stem from.
At this point, it is inconceivable that there is still such a "disconnect" between what WMF employees & volunteers accross the movement are saying, and what the BoT is thinking, saying & doing.
There have been repeated requests for engagement & action from the BoT, both on and off this list. The first step in that direction has to be to openly admit something is wrong, as Asaf rightly noted on this list no so long ago. It takes courage to look the truth in the face and admit mistakes. And itcll be hard for a while. But it has to be done and it's worth the effort if we want to move forward positively.
Like others, I believe this is the biggest crisis, crossroad, challenge (call it what you will), we have ever faced as a movement. But as wise people said, crisis also offers new opportunities and gifts, if confronted.
We have to fix this disconnect before we go on "fixing the internet".
And I wonder -- what else has to happen for the BoT to realize what both community and employees are saying for months now, embrace it and act on it.
Respectfully, Shani. On 19 Feb 2016 01:46, "Yury Bulka" setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
There are certain things that affect many volunteers directly. A slightly off-topic example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59608#1637250
The fact that:
"the WMF education team has no engineering resources"
...affects volunteers.
Sincerely, Yury Bulka (Wikimedia Ukraine)
Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net writes:
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem
is
that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of
the
latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even
if
Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant
choices
have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru
wrote:
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that
if
things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or
money
runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have
ten
active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation
is
unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to
all
kinds of events.
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
Hi Shani,
Thanks for your post to the mailing list. I appreciate your comments directed at the BoT.
Hopefully the collective voices will make an impact. Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Shani shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Yury, this is a very important example, but indeed off-topic. It deserves a separate thread, but not before addressing the current main crisis, which all others stem from.
At this point, it is inconceivable that there is still such a "disconnect" between what WMF employees & volunteers accross the movement are saying, and what the BoT is thinking, saying & doing.
There have been repeated requests for engagement & action from the BoT, both on and off this list. The first step in that direction has to be to openly admit something is wrong, as Asaf rightly noted on this list no so long ago. It takes courage to look the truth in the face and admit mistakes. And itcll be hard for a while. But it has to be done and it's worth the effort if we want to move forward positively.
Like others, I believe this is the biggest crisis, crossroad, challenge (call it what you will), we have ever faced as a movement. But as wise people said, crisis also offers new opportunities and gifts, if confronted.
We have to fix this disconnect before we go on "fixing the internet".
And I wonder -- what else has to happen for the BoT to realize what both community and employees are saying for months now, embrace it and act on it.
Respectfully, Shani. On 19 Feb 2016 01:46, "Yury Bulka" setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
There are certain things that affect many volunteers directly. A slightly off-topic example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59608#1637250
The fact that:
"the WMF education team has no engineering resources"
...affects volunteers.
Sincerely, Yury Bulka (Wikimedia Ukraine)
Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net writes:
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem
is
that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of
the
latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even
if
Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant
choices
have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru
wrote:
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that
if
things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or
money
runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have
ten
active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation
is
unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to
all
kinds of events.
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
Shani shani.even@gmail.com writes:
Yury, this is a very important example, but indeed off-topic. It deserves a separate thread, but not before addressing the current main crisis, which all others stem from.
I agree. This was just a random example of a "side-effect" of the crisis.
Best, Yury
On 19 Feb 2016 01:46, "Yury Bulka" setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
There are certain things that affect many volunteers directly. A slightly off-topic example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T59608#1637250
The fact that:
"the WMF education team has no engineering resources"
...affects volunteers.
Sincerely, Yury Bulka (Wikimedia Ukraine)
Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net writes:
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem
is
that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of
the
latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even
if
Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant
choices
have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
On 19 February 2016 at 07:52, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru
wrote:
To be honest, most volunteers do not care. We understand of course that
if
things would go really wrong, for example, servers stop running, or
money
runs out and ads are introduced, or English Wikipedia admins continue resigning/being desysopped without proper replacement, so that we have
ten
active admins, then we are in serious trouble. But as far as things are running quasi-normal, we just continue. I was making 50 to 100 edits per day five years ago, I am making 50 to 100 edits per day now, I will probably still be making 50 to 100 edits per day in five years, unless I die or leave because of a serious demotivation - and this demotivation
is
unlikely to be related to WMF. I think staff are way more vulnerable to
all
kinds of events.
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
Hi Craig, Amir, and Nat,
On 2016-02-19 00:13, Craig Franklin wrote:
Yaroslav,
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem is that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from "angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much of the latter, it may create a perception amongst the general public than even if Wikipedia is a useful resource, that it is incompetent with handling money. As a result, donations dry up, and difficult and unpleasant choices have to be made around budget.
So yes, this sort of thing can influence rank and file editors most seriously, albeit indirectly.
Cheers, Craig
Whereas you are absolutely right, I actually have two very simple points.
One is that in the big picture, servers were running ten years ago on a budget which is thousand times less than the current WMF budget. And unless someone screws up badly they would still be running in ten years from now. Most people use the servers to see content, and most of them want to look up the English Wikipedia. People who add this content - volunteers - are largely independent of the funding, and the vast majority of them do not even know that WMF exists. Sure, it would be very unfortunate to lose the development momentum, to lose GLAMS and similar things, but this is kind of luxury. Volunteers large live not because WMF screws up or because funding dries out; they leave because they burn out, move to a different period in their life, or, well, die. My point is that even if funding is severely reduced, it would be very unfortunate, but this is not yet the end of the world.
The second one refers to Leila's statement that she is more afraid for volunteers than for the staff. My point is that actually staff (including Leila herself) which suffer most from the ongoing disruption, and if one needs to protect someone (I am not sure it is needed) it should be staff, not volunteers.
For the record, I do not have any opinion on who is right and who is wrong here. I do not have enough information, and I do not have a habit making uninformed statements. Again, in the big picture this is irrelevant; what is relevant is that some disruption is going on, which definitely has an impact on the movement.
Cheers Yaroslav
For a few 2015 accomplishments by the product/technical teams you can see them listed here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Wikimedia_Foundation_Product_and_Techno...
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Casey Dentinger cdentinger@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would like to second what Ori said and add:
and in technology we're years behind the curve
I think this is a reductive view of the technology at WMF. It is true that many systems have been around in name for a long time, but that doesn't mean they haven't been evolving under the hood (as Ori describes) to scale with demand at the same (or better) pace as our trendier peers (who are often married to fly-by-night technologies). In an era of 10s pageloads hauling megabytes of trackware, WP's stats are actually pretty stellar.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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 believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Delphine,
many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your specific concerns.
I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want to sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything concrete to add.
take care! :)
dj
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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
Delphine, you're a bad ass. /a
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < djemielniak@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Delphine,
many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your specific concerns.
I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want to sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything concrete to add.
take care! :)
dj
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds
to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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
--
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org as a more permanent contact address. * _______________________________________________ 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
For our multicultural context... that's a compliment of high order.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delphine, you're a bad ass. /a
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < djemielniak@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Delphine,
many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your specific concerns.
I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want to sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything concrete to add.
take care! :)
dj
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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
--
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org dariusz.jemielniak@fulbrightmail.org as a more permanent contact address. * _______________________________________________ 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
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org*
Delphine,
thank you.
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).
The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.
I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty years of wandering in the desert to do so.
I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there - and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue. It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.
To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and both are suboptimal. # One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless, corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation. # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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, Denny Vrandecic (and to Dariusz Jemielniak as well) for expressing some individual views as members of the BoT.
Denny: A firm choice between the two communication strategies needs not be made. Both could be proper solutions depending on the situation. But don't you honestly think, that the BoT in this case ought to convene and work out a common and comprehensive response to the issues raised? I don't necessarily see the need for it to be handled through legal or why that would mean its ending up as "a bloodless, corporate-like speech".
The BoT should set the direction for the WMF after discussing topics with the community. I am absolutely sure that the intelligence of the members of the BoT is sufficient both to realize the situation and to know that lack of response for so long in itself adds to the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the community and the WMF staff.
And for one actual thing, I wonder how anybody could enter the BoT as affiliate (s)elected members without knowing the thoughts of the present BoT members on these important issues.
Regards, Thyge
2016-02-20 0:49 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org:
Delphine,
thank you.
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).
The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.
I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty years of wandering in the desert to do so.
I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there
- and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue. It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.
To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and both are suboptimal. # One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless, corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation. # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds
to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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 Ido,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am also grateful to many other people who have contributed to give us a better understanding of the past and the present (it is a lot of work).
I would like to read your opinion about two things that I find astonishing and urging for a remedy:
* How it could come so far that staff members so openly applaud critical voices about their boss, Lila Tretikov. This is a really terrible signal about the state of the Foundation. Ido, do you agree with William Beutler in the Signpost that it is not possible to imagine how the staff and Lila Tretikov can go on together?
* We have heard from some of the board members. I actually miss the voice of the chair. It is the task of a chair, certainly in a crisis like this, to contribute to more clearness, what the Board is thinking, what it intends to do next. Ido, imagine that the board makes a new start possible, which would include a new community election. Would you regard that to be helpful?
Kind regards Ziko
On 19 Feb 2016 23:49, "Denny Vrandecic" wrote
# The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Hi Denny (and the rest of the Board),
From my experience of Wikimedia movement conversations (and other
conversations from similar organisations) it is usually better to have Board members contributing to debates with their own voices. It's really reassuring to know that someone is saying something. Silence, by contrast, results in a lot of doubts. Thinking back to the Haifa letter and the discussion around fundraising and so on in 2011-2 - it was really helpful in that discussion when WMF board members started sharing their (conflicting) views rather than communicating through agreed statements ( which took hours to write and then ended up being really unclear anyway ). It meant that the Board started to look like a bunch of people trying to do the best job given conflicting perspectives, and stopped looking like an uncontrollable monolith.
Of course it doesn't help that there are some people on this list who will leap at every statement to find fault with it - but usually those people are fed more by silence than by engagement.
And of course it is not always possible to talk publically about differences of approach or upcoming issues - particularly where staff are concerned - but it is best to talk as far as you can, in my view.
Chris
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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 like this email of Chris and what seems to me strange is that there is an evident lack of control of the board.
I have read the emails of resignation without being shocked. They were expected. It's sufficient to use Mr.google and to reach Glassdoor to read the anonymous comments of former employees to discover there is a general unsatisfaction.
The motivation and the general "wealth" of employees and of the community is important. These are the numbers that the board must ask to see and not other stupid KPIs.
Kind regards Il 20/Feb/2016 10:25, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
On 19 Feb 2016 23:49, "Denny Vrandecic" wrote
# The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only
way
the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Hi Denny (and the rest of the Board),
From my experience of Wikimedia movement conversations (and other conversations from similar organisations) it is usually better to have Board members contributing to debates with their own voices. It's really reassuring to know that someone is saying something. Silence, by contrast, results in a lot of doubts. Thinking back to the Haifa letter and the discussion around fundraising and so on in 2011-2 - it was really helpful in that discussion when WMF board members started sharing their (conflicting) views rather than communicating through agreed statements ( which took hours to write and then ended up being really unclear anyway ). It meant that the Board started to look like a bunch of people trying to do the best job given conflicting perspectives, and stopped looking like an uncontrollable monolith.
Of course it doesn't help that there are some people on this list who will leap at every statement to find fault with it - but usually those people are fed more by silence than by engagement.
And of course it is not always possible to talk publically about differences of approach or upcoming issues - particularly where staff are concerned - but it is best to talk as far as you can, in my view.
Chris
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be
with
the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling
comfortable
with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits
in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app
being
featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are
local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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 Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom). ...
Denny, are you ready? Take a deep breath! Relax. It won't hurt :P
Do something!
You know you didn't say anything in your email. It looks like your own mantra, the product of your need to say something, while struggling with anxiety caused by thoughts about possible reactions on your email. But I'll stop criticizing here.
What I see as maybe not that visible change to others, but definitely a strong sign that something positively has changed inside of the Board is your willingness to actually think outside of the usual tropes. That's especially thank to Dariusz and you. Dariusz is doing something we expected from Sj in the previous life and, yes, your mantras are honest and I am sure I am not the only one who noted it. They are expressing your and other Board members' fears, confusion, lack of understanding the historical significance of your positions, but also your good will. That's brave, and that's the *change*, paradigm change.
After you reset the culture of denial, you should now start thinking how to boot the system again. Forget everything previous, forget the common excuses for avoiding responsibility.
Stop crying that you are not the movement leaders. You are. You can like or not that fact, but there is no other person or body in such position. If your vision is to be just the Board of the Bay Area NPO, feel free to do that, but just after you make the environment which would relieve you from the position of the movement leaders.
Now, please get out of your cocoons! And do something! We need you here.
+1
Get on with positive action!
Less chest beating, poetry, misdirection and encrypted messaging please.
Fae On 20 Feb 2016 11:37, "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom). ...
Denny, are you ready? Take a deep breath! Relax. It won't hurt :P
Do something!
You know you didn't say anything in your email. It looks like your own mantra, the product of your need to say something, while struggling with anxiety caused by thoughts about possible reactions on your email. But I'll stop criticizing here.
What I see as maybe not that visible change to others, but definitely a strong sign that something positively has changed inside of the Board is your willingness to actually think outside of the usual tropes. That's especially thank to Dariusz and you. Dariusz is doing something we expected from Sj in the previous life and, yes, your mantras are honest and I am sure I am not the only one who noted it. They are expressing your and other Board members' fears, confusion, lack of understanding the historical significance of your positions, but also your good will. That's brave, and that's the *change*, paradigm change.
After you reset the culture of denial, you should now start thinking how to boot the system again. Forget everything previous, forget the common excuses for avoiding responsibility.
Stop crying that you are not the movement leaders. You are. You can like or not that fact, but there is no other person or body in such position. If your vision is to be just the Board of the Bay Area NPO, feel free to do that, but just after you make the environment which would relieve you from the position of the movement leaders.
Now, please get out of your cocoons! And do something! We need you here.
-- Milos
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
Hello Denny,
I am not sure I can find any explanation "why" the board acts as it does in your email, to be honest. Which reinforces my long-time observation that the board is dysfunctional, as it has been for years now. One thing I do read between the lines though, is some kind of "fear" of doing the wrong thing. You bring up "legal" three times in your email, and this comforts me in thinking that Wikimedia has let the fear of "doing wrong" take over the "hope of doing right". These are sad times indeed.
As for the whole bit about "The Board is not the governing body of the movement" and all the nice rhetoric you packed around it, nothing new under the sun. And that is probably the crux of my worries. The Foundation and its board have never managed to establish themselves as "legitimate". The only thing I see at work here is a fear machine, working both inside and out, instilling fear in all other "stakeholders", under the cover of some overarching legality at play that takes precedence over everything else. Most sadly, also over the mission, it seems.
I thank you for intervening here, really, it's good to have other voices and to know that there are people who listen. I am however extremely sad that your email, again, says nothing.
And I'd be delighted to spend that "other time" discussing around a beer the next time you're here.
Cheers,
Delphine
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delphine,
thank you.
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).
The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.
I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty years of wandering in the desert to do so.
I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there
- and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue. It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.
To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and both are suboptimal. # One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless, corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation. # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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
Delphine, this was possibly the strongest email of the last four months or so of this mind-numbing nonsense.
The Board. I never really understood it. I did feel that it's supposed to lead the editors and the staff in _some_ way, but, being both a staff member and a volunteer editor, I never felt that it _actually_ does. Even though quite a lot of the Board members are totally wonderful people, wonderful Wikimedians and _my personal friends_, they never felt as Wikimedia's leaders. And I'd think that they should be.
Leader worship of the kind that is common in USSR, DPRK, or the Linux kernel, was NEVER my cup of tea, but _some_ (SOME!!!) kind of leadership would be nice. It feels like a pregnant void at the moment.
Please, somebody, make it stop. Let's go back to improving the encyclopedia, or something.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Delphine, this was possibly the strongest email of the last four months or so of this mind-numbing nonsense.
The Board. I never really understood it. I did feel that it's supposed to lead the editors and the staff in _some_ way, but, being both a staff member and a volunteer editor, I never felt that it _actually_ does. Even though quite a lot of the Board members are totally wonderful people, wonderful Wikimedians and _my personal friends_, they never felt as Wikimedia's leaders. And I'd think that they should be.
Leader worship of the kind that is common in USSR, DPRK, or the Linux kernel, was NEVER my cup of tea, but _some_ (SOME!!!) kind of leadership would be nice. It feels like a pregnant void at the moment.
Please, somebody, make it stop. Let's go back to improving the encyclopedia, or something.
I hear you. I understand that the BoT may seem undecisive, slow, overly inwards, etc. A lot of it is valid criticism. Some of it can be improved, some is unlikely to change (as you can imagine, even coordinating frequent meetings of people on different continents and having regular jobs, spanning occasionally 12h of time difference, is a challenge).
I cannot tell you that I believe we're not making mistakes on the way, and I cannot even admit that the pace of our work is satisfactory to me. I also share a lot of frustration with our disconnect, no good transparency and dialog practices, etc. But I can assure you that some of us are meeting to address different urging issues several times a week, or sometimes even daily (for instance, to catch up on the backlog of critical things from the past, such as seeking an expert member for the Board, or to seek better governance practices, as well as to discuss the contemporary emerging issues).
It is important to do things in good timing, but it is even more important to do things right (not just in decision-making - remember the VIsual Editor?), not get easily swayed or lead by a crowd, think straight. When I'm asking for patience, I'm basically trying to say that the Board is not ignoring you - but I think that as a body it tries its best to focus and use good, independent judgment, in the plenty of topics that emerge as important. It is not up to me to offer deadlines, but we are not really passive, as you seem to believe, either.
dj
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
It is important to do things in good timing, but it is even more important to do things right (not just in decision-making - remember the VIsual Editor?), not get easily swayed or lead by a crowd, think straight. When I'm asking for patience, I'm basically trying to say that the Board is not ignoring you - but I think that as a body it tries its best to focus and use good, independent judgment, in the plenty of topics that emerge as important. It is not up to me to offer deadlines, but we are not really passive, as you seem to believe, either.
dj
I will not pretend to have full insight into the issues the board is dealing with and so can not pass final judgement on whether the Board did the best they could given the circumstances (and may never be able to). However, admitting that, you must appreciate that even those of us who understand that speed is not always a luxury that is possible eventually get to a point where it's hard to assume the best anymore or to "just wait". Waiting a month, or two, or 3... to rethink decisions that were very clearly going to explode like this... eventually we start to think that you're not making a decision or that you're trying desperately to avoid it and hope everything just goes away despite the reality of the situation.
Perhaps you're not being passive, perhaps you are talking a lot and trying to do what's best (I actually believe that you *do* want to do what's best, every member of the board) but eventually it's almost impossible to believe you actually *will* if left alone. Given that, it's not hard to understand why some are getting angrier and angrier, trying to force an actual decision. It isn't like this has only been the past week or two, as you know, this has been much longer then that.
James [[User:Jamesofur]]/[[User:Jalexander-WMF]]
Thanks Denny for contributing here; very much appreciated.
Milos:
After you reset the culture of denial, you should now start thinking how to boot the system again. Forget everything previous, forget the common excuses for avoiding responsibility.
This is fair advice. The Board is looked to for leadership, direction, setting expectations. Of course there are other sources of leadership in the movement! but yours is critical. And it is especially critical for the staff if the Foundation's internal leadership has its own fires to put out.
Have at least one person help guide this discussion, and another for similar discussion with the staff. Please explain how you are handling this cluster of situations.
Dariusz:
It is not up to me to offer deadlines
It is, truly.
When something is urgent, any single Trustee can offer a deadline; any two can call a working meeting on 48 hours notice.
Warmly, SJ
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Denny,
I am not sure I can find any explanation "why" the board acts as it does in your email, to be honest. Which reinforces my long-time observation that the board is dysfunctional, as it has been for years now. One thing I do read between the lines though, is some kind of "fear" of doing the wrong thing. You bring up "legal" three times in your email, and this comforts me in thinking that Wikimedia has let the fear of "doing wrong" take over the "hope of doing right". These are sad times indeed.
As for the whole bit about "The Board is not the governing body of the movement" and all the nice rhetoric you packed around it, nothing new under the sun. And that is probably the crux of my worries. The Foundation and its board have never managed to establish themselves as "legitimate". The only thing I see at work here is a fear machine, working both inside and out, instilling fear in all other "stakeholders", under the cover of some overarching legality at play that takes precedence over everything else. Most sadly, also over the mission, it seems.
I thank you for intervening here, really, it's good to have other voices and to know that there are people who listen. I am however extremely sad that your email, again, says nothing.
And I'd be delighted to spend that "other time" discussing around a beer the next time you're here.
Cheers,
Delphine
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Delphine,
thank you.
Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).
The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation
is
not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS.
Some
of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than
these
mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.
I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have
no
idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us
forty
years of wandering in the desert to do so.
I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter
how
stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been
there
- and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue. It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.
To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments
on
many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and both are suboptimal. # One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and
to
go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter
how
vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless, corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will
never
be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation. # The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only
way
the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal implications.
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it - considering how creative and dissective some community members can be
with
the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling
comfortable
with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks, Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective
of
many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely
leading
here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly
hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good
results
to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six
seconds to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page
load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in
the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how
to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy
and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team
is
in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the
first
comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The
TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States,
and
is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover
capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org,
and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user
rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos,
etc.
Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content
Translation
tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the
top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of
people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the
Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing
off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local
and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ 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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will
get
lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
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 Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote: <snipped>
We need to get a grip, have more transparency, but also more bidirectional support, and start thinking about the future (I'm not saying this to sound as "nothing to watch, move on", but to restore some perspective and proportions). There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
Dariusz,
While it is important to point out the ways that people can give useful feedback to WMF today and over the next few months (as Liam did), we also need to clearly recognize the deep feelings of concern, frustration, and anger expressed by staff and members of the community.
It is widespread now to the point that unless constructive measures are taken to address these legitimate feeling, we risk having people withdraw from productive venues for engagement.
Most people are likely to think that at least some the staff that resigned didn't go without attempting to improve the situation before they left. And that other staff still at WMF are also frustrated and concerned. We need more validation of concerns that smart and knowledgeable people's advice and counsel is/was overlooked and that is going to change.
The staff and community need to believe that their engagement will influence the outcome.
We need to build confidence that engagement will have an impact on future actions of the WMF BoT and ED's plans.
Dariusz, I know that you have good intentions, but your comments in this thread and other place are still not reassuring that you understand that serious damage has occurred and needs to be repaired before people are going to want to work collaboratively with WMF.
Warm regards, Sydney
Thank you, Ori. +1 to everything you said.
Dariusz, I disagree with you: this *is* a time for "negativity". We have been laboring under significant dysfunction for more than a year now, and are now in crisis. We are losing precious colleagues, time, money, *even more* community trust than we had previously squandered, and health (literally; the board HR committee has been sent some details).
All this makes it a time for looking "the negative" in the eye and taking decisive action, so that the healing can begin. It is not a time for concentrating on the still-wonderful aspects of this movement's work. If I did not know you and know for a fact that cannot be your intent, it would sure feel like attempted misdirection. (Please read the beginning of the previous sentence again if you need to.)
Please act. If for some reason the board cannot act, please state that reason. Signal to us, community and staff, by concrete words if not by deeds, that you understand the magnitude of the problem.
With great sympathy for how unpleasant it must be to be a (volunteer) board member right now,
A. On Feb 18, 2016 11:29 AM, "Sydney Poore" sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
<snipped> > > We need to get a grip, have more transparency, but also more bidirectional > support, and start thinking about the future (I'm not saying this to sound > as "nothing to watch, move on", but to restore some perspective and > proportions). There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations > working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of > many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading > here, too! ;)
Dariusz,
While it is important to point out the ways that people can give useful feedback to WMF today and over the next few months (as Liam did), we also need to clearly recognize the deep feelings of concern, frustration, and anger expressed by staff and members of the community.
It is widespread now to the point that unless constructive measures are taken to address these legitimate feeling, we risk having people withdraw from productive venues for engagement.
Most people are likely to think that at least some the staff that resigned didn't go without attempting to improve the situation before they left. And that other staff still at WMF are also frustrated and concerned. We need more validation of concerns that smart and knowledgeable people's advice and counsel is/was overlooked and that is going to change.
The staff and community need to believe that their engagement will influence the outcome.
We need to build confidence that engagement will have an impact on future actions of the WMF BoT and ED's plans.
Dariusz, I know that you have good intentions, but your comments in this thread and other place are still not reassuring that you understand that serious damage has occurred and needs to be repaired before people are going to want to work collaboratively with WMF.
Warm regards, Sydney
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 Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
All this makes it a time for looking "the negative" in the eye and taking decisive action, so that the healing can begin. It is not a time for concentrating on the still-wonderful aspects of this movement's work. If I did not know you and know for a fact that cannot be your intent, it would sure feel like attempted misdirection. (Please read the beginning of the previous sentence again if you need to.)
I know of people who are overwhelmed with negativity on the list. I myself feel it, too, although I am determined not to reduce my participation or liaising with the communities.
When I refer to being constructive, I speak of exactly seeking decisive actions and moving forward, instead of gathering around a lying body and kicking :)
I understand I may receive much more of (also often valid) criticism just because I participate in the dialogue here. I guess that's fine as long as we all still move forward (read: suggest satisfactory protocols and decide on actions that will lower the tensions).
I think that what is useful in such times is being precise: for instance, there was a voiced demand (which I support and consider reasonable) to have the Knowledge Engine explained. I really like the fact that there is an FAQ prepared and that there are answers posted. This is a constructive method of addressing a particular problem (I'm referring to the approach, not to the content, obviously, since it is a new page). I think we need precision in defining problems, and also precision in proposing constructive solutions, that's all.
dj
On Feb 18, 2016 12:08 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
When I refer to being constructive, I speak of exactly seeking decisive actions and moving forward, instead of gathering around a lying body and kicking :)
What is the board doing, going forward, to stem the tide of staff resignations?
-- brion
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Although I really appreciate you engaging in this list, I see that in
the absence of more frequent official communications from the BoT, what you say in this list is interpreted as a strong signal from the BoT, and it is held to the standards we expect to see when we communicate with a Board member. This means that if you are not specific and even more careful with your choice of words, you will hear strong criticism, just because words/statements can be interpreted differently depending on the context we are operating in.
- I'm asking you to continue communicating with us in your capacity as a
Board member, and I'm also asking you to be very very careful with your choice of words and statements. Trust me: I know what I'm asking you is extremely hard. So, here is what I offer you: I assume good faith in what you say and please reach out if I can be of help.
Point taken. I definitely hope my colleagues will join in more, but I will definitely make a better effort to be more careful with wording. I really have had no intentions to sound critical! Regarding tech, it is basically an often repeated view that we are a tech organization, and I wanted to add the "yeah, but..." - pointing out to the fact that we are an amazing social movement&community facilitator, which is more rarely emphasized.
Will it help if I confess that I've started using the Visual Editor every now and then and I think it is awesome? (especially the references!) :)
btw, please note that English is not my native language and I definitely lack the nuance, as well as occasionally do and will drop bricks because of different cultural backgrounds (and beg your pardon in advance).
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
What is the board doing, going forward, to stem the tide of staff resignations?
We have started with an engagement survey, and organizational facilitator analysis. More and more current input can be provided by Patricio or others from the Board's HR Committee, but there is also a lot of work done by the HR department, under its new leadership.
dj
Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@...> writes: I know of people who are overwhelmed with negativity on the list. I myself feel it, too, although I am determined not to reduce my participation or liaising with the communities.
The negativity is not going to magically go away, especially not when we start seeing more people leave as we're being warned about right here. There is a reason that resignations are a popular response to scandal: without them, the negativity can continue for a long, long time.
Also, this is not a good time for smiley faces. I can't imagine that it feels empathetic to staff members who are feeling let down right now.
Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@...> writes: I think that what is useful in such times is being precise: for instance, there was a voiced demand (which I support and consider reasonable) to have the Knowledge Engine explained. I really like the fact that there is an FAQ prepared and that there are answers posted. This is a constructive method of addressing a particular problem (I'm referring to the approach, not to the content, obviously, since it is a new page). I think we need precision in defining problems, and also precision in proposing constructive solutions, that's all.
OK, in terms of problems, staff are saying that it's Lila. Do you want them to be more specific in a public mailing list about how and where she has disappointed them? That seems like an awkward situation for Lila. I think the community has made it clear that we are disappointed about the transparency with regard to the Knight Foundation, continuing up to a disappointing blog post. Note that the WMF declined to disclose the grant until Andreas Kolbe emailed the grant officer John Brackens who said that revealing grant documents is entirely up to the grantee (ie, WMF). Donor privacy was never an issue. People are entitled to have a limit at which point they say "enough is enough". That limit may be different than yours, but it's clear that it has been reached for many people.
Now, in terms of constructive solutions: it takes 2 board members to call a special meeting, with a minimum 2 days notice. Have you tried? I suspect that Maria might second you. If you cannot find a second, please let us know.
At that special meeting, you can make a motion to address the issues. I know how I would word the motion, and I don't think I need to spell it out for you. But maybe you have innovative ideas. The community should see the breakdown of the votes.
I noticed in a later post you pointed towards the Human Resources Committee as tackling the problem. This committee is composed of Jimbo, Patricio, and Guy Kawasaki. So: the guy who called James, the one who was trying to help staff, a "fucking liar" (if I recall correctly), the Chair of the board who removed the staff's friend, and who can be held most directly responsible for the board's lack of transparency and actions as the elected leader of the board, and Guy, who I understand is quite influential in the board room, but whose last communication to us was to express support for Arnnon without knowing how to sign his wiki username. That does not sound like a constructive way forward. I really wish I didn't have to point out these negative facts, as I have no interest in hurting anyone's feelings. I keep holding off from posting, hoping that better news will come.
When I first heard about the removal of James, the quote that ran through my mind, which I expressed to Sam Klein in a phone call, was from Warren Buffett: "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you t hink about that, you'll do things differently".
בתאריך 19 בפבר׳ 2016 09:31, "Ben Creasy" ben@bencreasy.com כתב:
OK, in terms of problems, staff are saying that it's Lila. Do you want
them to
be more specific in a public mailing list about how and where she has disappointed them? That seems like an awkward situation for Lila.
... And for the staff, no matter how many times people repeat that voicing the criticism is safe.
I noticed in a later post you pointed towards the Human Resources
Committee as
tackling the problem. This committee is composed of Jimbo, Patricio, and
Guy
Kawasaki. So: the guy who called James, the one who was trying to help
staff, a
"fucking liar" (if I recall correctly), the Chair of the board who
removed the
staff's friend, and who can be held most directly responsible for the
board's
lack of transparency and actions as the elected leader of the board, and
Guy,
who I understand is quite influential in the board room, but whose last communication to us was to express support for Arnnon without knowing how
to
sign his wiki username.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can recall, this was not just Guy Kawasaki's last communication, but his _only_ communication to... pretty much whatever any Wikimedian can call "us".
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org