Why we’ve changed

I want to address some of the many questions that are coming up in this forum. From the general to the very concrete, they all touch on the fact that many things about the WMF have been changing. We are in the thick of transformation, and you all have the right to know more about how and why this is occurring. This is not a statement of strategy, which will come out of the community consultation next week. This is the ED’s perspective only.

After 15 years since the birth of Wikipedia, the WMF needs to rethink itself to ensure our editor work expands into the next decade. Recently we kicked-off some initiatives to this end, including aligning community support functions, focus on mobile and innovative technology, seeding the Wikimedia Endowment, re-organizing our internal structure, exploring partnerships and focusing on the most critical aspects of our mission: community and technology. We started this transformation, but as we move forward we are facing a crisis that is rooted in our choice of direction.

The choice in front the WMF is that of our core identity. Our mission can be served in many ways, but we cannot do them all. We could either fully focus on building our content and educational programs. Or we can get great at technology as the force multiplier for our movement. I believe the the former belongs to our volunteers and affiliates and that the role of the WMF is in providing global support and coordination of this work. I believe in -- and the board hired me to -- focus on the latter. To transform our organization into a high-tech NGO, focused on the needs of our editors and readers and rapidly moving to update our aged technology to support those needs. To this end we have made many significant changes. But the challenge in front of us is hard to underestimate: technology moves faster than any other field and meeting expectations of editors and readers will require undistracted focus.

Umm, since when have the volunteers stopped being part of the WMF? I thought that volunteers are the heart of the the purpose, central to the Foundation. Since which point has the STAFF and their output become *the WMF*?

I don't think that you will hear staff or volunteers dispute that we want technological advancement, in fact it is clearly wanted. However, I don't believe that they want technological advancement to come at the expense of the community, or the exclusion of community. It is this community that has invested itself in building the content/systems/tools in wikipedia, commons, wikidata, wikisource, wikiquote, wikiversity, wikivoyage, wiktionary, wikibooks, wikinews, wikispecies, mediawiki,

The community strives to understand, and the community strives to support. That it is hard to do so, especially in the current times, can hardly be the fault of the community.

What changed?

1) that staff are resigning at record rate; 2) that remaining staff seem to be in general revolt; 3) that the board and the CEO stopped presenting matters that clearly illustrate a clear picture and vision 4) that the board didn't heed the implicit message from the political editor-base about transparency, openness, and their desires 5) the peasants are now revolting; 6) there is next to no support for the CEO

After the staff leave, WMF stops being an employer of choice for the socially conscience. The political editor-base get nothing but disillusioned.

From outside, I have no clear perspective whether you are doing a good

job or a bad job for your hire. That there is turmoil in the workplace doesn't indicate that there is control, or the likelihood of regaining control.

The indications that I see are a toxic workplace, and I see no solution put forward. I see staff that I have watched, 'known' and interacted for numbers of years in pain, in frustration, and disengaging. I see numbers of them cowed, and I see few of them leading any more. So we have the choice of removing all of those staff, and trying to re-hire, and then the change management process of engagement, team-building, ...

I don't see emotional intelligence, sustainable change, resonant leadership, or team-building. I don't see evident situational awareness, clear dynamic risk assessment and most definitely I don't see effective controls.

I think that I see risk denial, and risk blindness from the the board and the CEO.and a task-focus on a matter of a ship apparently left harbour without passengers as it wants to get to a place. I see megaphone diplomacy.

I may be completely wrong in my assessment; I know that it is a harsh judgment; but that is how it looks to me from the outside, and and from the little bit of the inside that I had when I was a steward. It is a situation that volunteers should not be forming such an opinion, however the inability of yourself and the board to achieve a resolution is a damning indictment.

Regards, Billinghurst (now retreating to my hole pulling the rock back over my head)