Hey all!
As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent:
@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-off possible between the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to.
@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions.
@future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often...
Cheers,
gego
*"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
_____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproject@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all!
As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent:
@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-off possible between the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to.
@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions.
@future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often...
Cheers,
gego
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said "let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity, honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement". To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.
It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.
In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking difficult questions".
Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typ... 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
Fae
On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
*"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproject@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all!
As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent:
@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-off possible between the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to.
@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions.
@future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often...
Cheers,
gego
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On the other hand, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
A long successful history associated with the Chatham House Rule.
It sounds like some variation on this was intended for the meeting.
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said "let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity, honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement". To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.
It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.
In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking difficult questions".
Links:
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typ...
- https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
Fae
On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
*"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the promise of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproject@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all!
As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent:
@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-off possible between the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept of principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to.
@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions.
@future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often...
Cheers,
gego
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On the other other hand, having any sort of "Chatham House Rule" in an organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one of its core tenets......think about it people..........
Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the organisation has no need for any "Chatham House Rule".
What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: "corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable."
Russavia
Way to completely miss the point.
Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of views. Nothing anyone has said disputes that.
If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On the other other hand, having any sort of "Chatham House Rule" in an organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one of its core tenets......think about it people..........
Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the organisation has no need for any "Chatham House Rule".
What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: "corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable."
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think this topic has been overblown. It's not as if anyone on this mailing list has any right or opportunity to pressure a chapter to remove a member of their Board - unless those individuals are members of the specific chapter. And really, if you're an active member of that chapter, you should already be aware of the people who are on the Board, and their general attitudes toward the community - and their definition of what they consider to be the "community" they're representing or interacting with.
It's important to remember that there's a huge range in the extent and nature of relationships between chapters and the editorial communities to which they are most closely attached. In some cases, the chapters are made up almost entirely of active community members from a specific project; in other cases, membership and voting rights in a chapter are linked to donations or are wide open to anyone who wants to be a member, whether or not they are active participants in any WMF project. Even when chapters actively support editing community initiatives, those initiatives have to fit within the broader umbrella of the project as a whole. There are half a dozen chapters whose members are most closely affiliated with English Wikipedia, for example, so their ability to affect the broader community is small.
There are examples on Meta of chapter trustees who do focus on the separation between the chapters and the editing communities, and describe where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those. I'm not seeing a lot of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single individual for an uncontextualized comment attributed to them.
Risker/Anne
Just to clarify that I don't believe Tomasz, the original poster, was trolling.
You, Ashley, have been doing so spectacularly :) On 7 Apr 2014 16:50, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said "let's keep this secret". The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for integrity, honesty and openness even if this does mean explaining your actions that you thought would stay in-camera under a "gentleman's agreement". To do otherwise, as has been readily demonstrated by the history of UK Government political networks, corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable.
It goes on to spell out that [Chapter Trustees] "are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." Calling Tomasz a troll as a way of dismissing a serious question about statements made in meetings that Wikimedia donors paid for about the volunteer community is not unreasonable. Had whomever said these things, came forward and explained their point of view, in the same way as the always delightful Christophe Henner has in this thread, then they would have my respect and be seen to comply with the Nolan principles.
In comparison to Christophe's openness, Chris Keating's responses to good faith questions about this workshop before it happened,[1] in particular his blatantly dismissive replies to long term Wikimedian well known activist Effeietsanders, seem well below how we expect someone who has formally signed up to the Nolan principles as part of the UK trustee code[2] to behave. As Michael Maggs is the one with a duty as the UK Chairman to enforce this code, I am sure folks will be welcome to ask him about these matters, and his expectation for behaviour from his board members, both when in closed or open meetings or on this email list, during the open meetings at the Wikimedia Conference later this week. I hope such a discussion does not get turned around into "how do we stop Tomasz from trolling us by asking difficult questions".
Links:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Typ... 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct
Fae
On 7 April 2014 15:44, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
*"@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants..."*
I'm sorry but quote someone on a on-line journal does not break the
promise
of secrecy? If they speak believing they would never be quoted, put their words on the Wikipedia Signpost isnt breaking that?
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 7 April 2014 09:53, eLib Project elibproject@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all!
As I have been helping out with wikipedias from time to time, here my 5 cent:
@Fae: I do not think that it is within the spirit of the Nolan Principles to break a promise given to participants... there is no trade-off possible between the principles for the principles (Leadership, Honesty, Integrity Selflessness Objectivity vs Openness, Accountability ?!). That is, after all the basic concept
of
principles - that they are even followed when you don't want to or like to.
@discussion culture: To get to a decision, everyone must be allowed to express her/or himself in a discussion without fearing repercussions afterwards - otherwise you just get yes-people who will not participate or worse, tell you what you want to hear. Why it is important to say something stupid like "fuck the community" is because it came right from the inside, without prior going through a filter... with this reaction people will filter and you will not only loose dumb but also intelligent contributions.
@future (sarcasm warning): if you do not wish this sort of comments, just say so in a general sense - YES, it's possible to get the message across without a witch/wizard hunt and even CHANGE the rules for the next time... learning without burning... how the world could have looked if this had been used more often...
Cheers,
gego
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list 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@lists.wikimedia.org