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, 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266