Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also surprised by the situation considering the previous discussion about the problematic conflict in interest that would arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure. [1] I suppose the exact nature of Erik's hire shows that such discussions on this mailing rather than being taken to heart as feedback from the community about the spirit of WMF's operations are instead being used as an outline for how to game the community. After all Erik was not hired by *the board* So I suppose all these previously expressed objections just don't apply in this case ;)
Birgitte SB
[1]Emails agreeing that an immediate hire of a former board member could be a problematic conflict of interest and supporting the adoption of some kind of guidelines to guard against this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031846.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031867.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031908.html
Sole email disagreeing this kind of hiring would be problematic http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031862.html
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing something.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html
-Chad
On Dec 18, 2007 12:52 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also surprised by the situation considering the previous discussion about the problematic conflict in interest that would arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure. [1] I suppose the exact nature of Erik's hire shows that such discussions on this mailing rather than being taken to heart as feedback from the community about the spirit of WMF's operations are instead being used as an outline for how to game the community. After all Erik was not hired by *the board* So I suppose all these previously expressed objections just don't apply in this case ;)
Birgitte SB
[1]Emails agreeing that an immediate hire of a former board member could be a problematic conflict of interest and supporting the adoption of some kind of guidelines to guard against this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031846.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031867.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031908.html
Sole email disagreeing this kind of hiring would be problematic http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031862.html
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On the other hand, having a member of the community with a good relationship with the trustees involved in day to day operations is of significant value in and of itself. Its possible it could create some difficulties (e.g. he now reports to someone who reports to the Board, so adjusting to that difference could be an issue) but I see no reason not to give Erik and the Board the benefit of the doubt in this situation. As long as they do a background check!
On Dec 18, 2007 1:03 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing something.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html
-Chad
On Dec 18, 2007 12:52 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also surprised by the situation considering the previous discussion about the problematic conflict in interest that would arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure. [1] I suppose the exact nature of Erik's hire shows that such discussions on this mailing rather than being taken to heart as feedback from the community about the spirit of WMF's operations are instead being used as an outline for how to game the community. After all Erik was not hired by *the board* So I suppose all these previously expressed objections just don't apply in this case ;)
Birgitte SB
[1]Emails agreeing that an immediate hire of a former board member could be a problematic conflict of interest and supporting the adoption of some kind of guidelines to guard against this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031846.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031867.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031908.html
Sole email disagreeing this kind of hiring would be problematic http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031862.html
____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:03:44PM -0500, Chad wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing something.
That's a fairly serious allegation to make in post 9/11 America. What makes it especially good is the fact that you're looking at the wrong page entirely ;-)
read you soon, Kim Bruning
On Tue, December 18, 2007 19:36, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:03:44PM -0500, Chad wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing
something.
That's a fairly serious allegation to make in post 9/11 America. What makes it especially good is the fact that you're looking at the wrong page entirely
I had read the issue as being about the 'not a US resident' problem. Some years ago I was engaged via a major company to do some work for the US DoD, however the State Dept wouldn't let me into the country (or rather grant me the appropriate visa) because "{I] might be taking away a job from an American; we need to see evidence that a full and exhaustive search was made for an American who could capably do this job before they can appoint [me]". Because my flight, apartment and desk were waiting for me in three days time, and the timescale for the work had to start then and couldn't be delayed, the whole task got cancelled (ie there were five people in the world who could even 8do* the job and I was the only one available at short notice but to get verifiable paperwork on that would haev taken a month or two)
I don't believe there was a personal allegation against Erik or Germans as a nationality ...
As to whether such visa possibilities have been confirmed in this instance, I have no knowledge.
Alison
I... would really like to know what task it is you were supposed to perform!
On Dec 18, 2007 4:20 PM, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Tue, December 18, 2007 19:36, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:03:44PM -0500, Chad wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing
something.
That's a fairly serious allegation to make in post 9/11 America. What makes it especially good is the fact that you're looking at the wrong page entirely
I had read the issue as being about the 'not a US resident' problem. Some years ago I was engaged via a major company to do some work for the US DoD, however the State Dept wouldn't let me into the country (or rather grant me the appropriate visa) because "{I] might be taking away a job from an American; we need to see evidence that a full and exhaustive search was made for an American who could capably do this job before they can appoint [me]". Because my flight, apartment and desk were waiting for me in three days time, and the timescale for the work had to start then and couldn't be delayed, the whole task got cancelled (ie there were five people in the world who could even 8do* the job and I was the only one available at short notice but to get verifiable paperwork on that would haev taken a month or two)
I don't believe there was a personal allegation against Erik or Germans as a nationality ...
As to whether such visa possibilities have been confirmed in this instance, I have no knowledge.
Alison
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, December 18, 2007 21:24, Nathan Awrich wrote:
I... would really like to know what task it is you were supposed to perform!
rofl!
Some of you might recall way back in 1985 or 6 that the Department of Defence ^W Defense wanted to buy a ton or two of new computers - around US$30 billion worth (and in those days a billion dollars was worth a billion dollars!) of kit?
I was asked to put together that bid and consult on the requirements. The timescale was 3-6 months but had to start within that few days if it was to have any hope of being done on time (which is why an apartment had been found for me in Washington, a Lincoln town car placed at my disposal, and a desk was waiting for me the following week!)
Obviously, the mainframe company that had engaged me didn't get the business ...
Alison
That link really does not mean a great deal since are many sorts of visas available and various methods of immigrating to the US. Since you are somewhat replying to me, I will say that I don't feel comfortable to be speculating on any particular person's immigration status on a public mailing list. However this list often goes beyond my personal comfort zone. In general, I imagine the WMF has been soliciting qualified legal advice on hiring procedures. I am not concerned about any laws being broken.
Birgitte SB
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing something.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html
-Chad
On Dec 18, 2007 12:52 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?"
Am
I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik
call
for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there
was
no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also
surprised
by the situation considering the previous
discussion
about the problematic conflict in interest that
would
arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure. [1] I suppose
the
exact nature of Erik's hire shows that such discussions on this mailing rather than being
taken to
heart as feedback from the community about the
spirit
of WMF's operations are instead being used as an outline for how to game the community. After all
Erik
was not hired by *the board* So I suppose all
these
previously expressed objections just don't apply
in
this case ;)
Birgitte SB
[1]Emails agreeing that an immediate hire of a
former
board member could be a problematic conflict of interest and supporting the adoption of some kind
of
guidelines to guard against this
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031846.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031867.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031908.html
Sole email disagreeing this kind of hiring would
be
problematic
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031862.html
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 18/12/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I'm wondering if it is legal for Erik to work within the United States. Nothing on the qualifications for a work visa page seems to jump out at me, unless I'm missing something.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html
Failing to do background checks is one thing, employing someone that's not legally allowed to work in the country is quite another. I very much doubt they would make *that* big a mistake.
On 18/12/2007, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also surprised by the situation considering the previous discussion about the problematic conflict in interest that would arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure.
That discussion did occur to me, yes. I find it vaguely amusing that I was arguing there on the assumption that employee -> board was going to be more plausible than the other way around...
On Dec 18, 2007 9:52 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
-Chad H.
While "outraged" is rather strong, I am also surprised by the situation considering the previous discussion about the problematic conflict in interest that would arise if a board member were to be hired by WMF immediately after their departure. [1] I suppose the exact nature of Erik's hire shows that such discussions on this mailing rather than being taken to heart as feedback from the community about the spirit of WMF's operations are instead being used as an outline for how to game the community. After all Erik was not hired by *the board* So I suppose all these previously expressed objections just don't apply in this case ;)
Birgitte SB
[1]Emails agreeing that an immediate hire of a former board member could be a problematic conflict of interest and supporting the adoption of some kind of guidelines to guard against this http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031814.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031846.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031867.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031908.html
Sole email disagreeing this kind of hiring would be problematic http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-July/031862.html
Indeed. Thanks for the references, Birgette (although much of that discussion was over whether a former employee could/should become a board member, which is perhaps a slightly different set of issues). As I recall all of that was happening right when Sue was getting started here.
I find the lack of public search less worrying than the complete lack of public discussion over what the position might do and why we might need someone as Deputy Director in the first place. One difference between WMF and other organizations is historically we *have* discussed things like this. I think the community agrees, for instance, that we need a legal director (Mike's current role), and we know why -- there are lots of legal questions that come up every day. The board has made the case eloquently to us over the last couple of years why we need an executive director, and an accountant -- those positions aren't controversial. But a deputy director?
Sue's message was primarily an announcement, with a short bio. I think most of us already know who Erik is, though; know from innumerable projects & six years worth of edits. His election returns would seem to show a good bit of support in the community, as well, so that's all to the good -- I don't doubt that he is a reasonable choice for the position.
But I am more interested in what it is exactly he is supposed to be doing. Getting projects delegated from Sue and orienting the staff is not a very descriptive charge; and no offense to anyone, but I'm pretty sure there are other ways to orient the staff -- I know the thriving and friendly Wikimedia community in SF would be happy to help out, or they could be oriented online like everyone else. So what are these special projects? If Brion is reporting to Erik, then is Erik going to work on technical policy? How do the two open positions, for Head of Partnerships and Head of Development, fit in given that Erik has done a lot of work on both those things (will he be doing those things)? Is Sue unavailable so much that she needs backup? (As a consultant, perhaps yes, but as a full-time CEO?) Given our pretty slim funding this year, hiring another executive isn't the first thing that would occur to me when looking at the budget.
As you all know, I am all in favor of professionalism, but I am also in favor of knowing what's going on, and I think we all greatly value the sense that our ideas and work as community members might have an impact in making decisions like this.
-- phoebe
phoebe ayers wrote:
As you all know, I am all in favor of professionalism, but I am also in favor of knowing what's going on, and I think we all greatly value the sense that our ideas and work as community members might have an impact in making decisions like this.
-- phoebe
Hi Phoebe, etc.
Answers to some of the questions that have been raised, below.......
Thanks, Sue
- Why wasn't the position advertised?
It's completely normal, in some circumstances, to not advertise. In this instance, the job requirements were pretty specific: I was looking for a longtime community member, ideally with a good understanding of the organization's history and how it works today, and with good relationships in the free culture movement. Someone who is solid technically. Who is willing and able to relocate to San Francisco. Ideally with experience living or working outside North America, and with languages other than English.
There is not a long list of people who fit those requirements, and my feeling was that I likely wouldn't surface any through advertising: if they existed, I almost certainly already knew about them.
- Why wasn't this whole process more public/inclusive?
I respect the position of the community members who want transparency and openness. But transparency is always tough when it comes to individual staffing issues. In this instance, I planned to hire a deputy only_if_ I could find someone who fit the requirements I named above. Since I was clearly not going to publicly evaluate individual candidates, I don't think a public process would've been all that useful.
- Is it a good idea for someone to shift from staff to board, or vice versa, with no waiting period?
This has been discussed a fair bit by the board and the community, and the board has not put in place any restrictions around such movements. I think the organization has not yet gotten to consensus, and it's possible that the harm -in restricting access to the tiny pool of people with Wikimedia organizational experience- might in fact outweigh the good. Regardless - there is no requirement for a waiting period, and I see no particular argument for one in this instance.
- Has Erik resigned from his other commitments?
Yes, Erik has resigned from the board and from his role as CTO of Open Progress.
- Is Erik legally able to work in the United States?
Yes.
- Did Erik recuse himself from the board vote on Sue as ED because she had already offered him the deputy job?
Yes, at that point we were talking about the deputy role, and that's why Erik recused himself.
- Is there a formal job description?
Yes, attached. Because it's a new position, it will likely not play out exactly as detailed here, but this is a snapshot of what we imagine, at this moment, the job will look like.
- Is there a formal job description?
Yes, attached. Because it's a new position, it will likely not play out exactly as detailed here, but this is a snapshot of what we imagine, at this moment, the job will look like.
Er, pasted below :-)
-----
JOB TITLE
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
REPORTS TO
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
POSITIONS REPORTING TO THIS ONE
CTO. Authority over non-technical staff as delegated by the Executive Director.
MISSION OF THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop neutral educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep the educational content from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
JOB SUMMARY
The purpose of this role is to support the executive director in the development and implementation of the Foundation’s strategic plans and policies, and to provide leadership and direction to the CTO and other technical staff.
RESPONSIBILITIES
* Full delegated authority to act on behalf of the Executive Director in her absence; * Responsible for the development and execution of the Foundation's technical strategy; * Provides leadership and direction for technical staff, setting an effective agenda and ensuring performance goals are met and set; * Serves as a mentor, coach and guide to senior staff, particularly with regards to the Wikimedia community and wiki technology; * Represents the organization to the public, key stakeholders and business partners; * Provides guidance, as requested by the Executive Director, for fundraising and donor management, business development and partnership activities; * Provides guidance, as requested by the Executive Director, for program activities including outreach, volunteer coordination and partnerships development, as well as marketing, media relations, public relations and issues management activities; * Other duties as requested by the Executive Director.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS
* Five years experience in the nonprofit sector; * Deep understanding of, and sympathy with, the Wikimedia Foundation and its mission and goals; * Solid understanding of the open source and open access communities; * Experience with online community development principles and practices; * Experience with project management principles and practices; * Experience with software development and applications, particularly MediaWiki; * Deep technical understanding including programming skills and system administration experience; * Good grasp of issues/crisis/risk management, media/public/stakeholder relations, safeguarding of brand; * Effective communications skills, both verbally and in writing, including presentation experience; * Experience negotiating and interacting with non-profit and for-profit organizations inside and outside North America; * Experience serving on a Board of Directors of a non-profit organization would be an asset; * Strong personal integrity and a collaborative style; capable of building and sustaining productive, effective working relationships; * The ability to speak multiple languages is a major plus; * Experience living or working outside the United States is a major plus; * You must be comfortable in a highly collaborative, consensus-oriented environment.
ABOUT WMF
The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable corporation with headquarters in San Francisco, California. It is fully audited and has 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in the United States. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. The Wikimedia Foundation operates some of the largest collaboratively edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, one of the 10 most-visited websites in the world.
I am sure I am not the only one who is greatly pleased to recieve this clarification on the hiring process.
For my own part I would add that the qualities that Sue outlines are excellent ones for a deputy. Complementary skills and backround. Excellent balance all over.
I can't think of anyone better suited to acclimatize the hired staff as to our value structure and ways of collaboration; and don't see where Erik falls short of the other requirements either.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
- Why wasn't the position advertised?
It's completely normal, in some circumstances, to not advertise. In this instance, the job requirements were pretty specific: I was looking for a longtime community member, ideally with a good understanding of the organization's history and how it works today, and with good relationships in the free culture movement. Someone who is solid technically. Who is willing and able to relocate to San Francisco. Ideally with experience living or working outside North America, and with languages other than English.
There is not a long list of people who fit those requirements, and my feeling was that I likely wouldn't surface any through advertising: if they existed, I almost certainly already knew about them.
That pretty much resolves my concerns, thank you.
- Why wasn't this whole process more public/inclusive?
I respect the position of the community members who want transparency and openness. But transparency is always tough when it comes to individual staffing issues. In this instance, I planned to hire a deputy only_if_ I could find someone who fit the requirements I named above. Since I was clearly not going to publicly evaluate individual candidates, I don't think a public process would've been all that useful.
That's a tricky one. It would have been good to discuss with the community what the requirements and role should be, and whether we need such a person at all. The final decision would be yours, but some consultation would be nice. However, if you did this it would have been taken as advertising a job and various people would put their names forward, some of them publicly, and you risked having to publicly state that they were all unsuitable for the job, which is rather an awkward position to be in. I imagine you could have done it tactfully if you'd wanted to, though.
- Has Erik resigned from his other commitments?
Yes, Erik has resigned from the board and from his role as CTO of Open Progress.
If memory serves, Erik has also held a board position on another open content related project (I can't remember which) - am I remembering correctly, and if so, does he still hold it? (I see no particular reason for him not to, as long as it's on his own time, but in the interests of transparency, I'd like to know.)
Out of curiosity, how does Erik serving on other non-profit boards, even of related organizations (assuming they are unpaid positions), an issue that is included in transparency regarding WMF? It would seem to be a personal choice that doesn't affect his performance as a WMF employee.
On Dec 19, 2007 12:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- Why wasn't the position advertised?
It's completely normal, in some circumstances, to not advertise. In this instance, the job requirements were pretty specific: I was looking for a longtime community member, ideally with a good understanding of the organization's history and how it works today, and with good relationships in the free culture movement. Someone who is solid technically. Who is willing and able to relocate to San Francisco. Ideally with experience living or working outside North America, and with languages other than English.
There is not a long list of people who fit those requirements, and my feeling was that I likely wouldn't surface any through advertising: if they existed, I almost certainly already knew about them.
That pretty much resolves my concerns, thank you.
- Why wasn't this whole process more public/inclusive?
I respect the position of the community members who want transparency and openness. But transparency is always tough when it comes to individual staffing issues. In this instance, I planned to hire a deputy only_if_ I could find someone who fit the requirements I named above. Since I was clearly not going to publicly evaluate individual candidates, I don't think a public process would've been all that useful.
That's a tricky one. It would have been good to discuss with the community what the requirements and role should be, and whether we need such a person at all. The final decision would be yours, but some consultation would be nice. However, if you did this it would have been taken as advertising a job and various people would put their names forward, some of them publicly, and you risked having to publicly state that they were all unsuitable for the job, which is rather an awkward position to be in. I imagine you could have done it tactfully if you'd wanted to, though.
- Has Erik resigned from his other commitments?
Yes, Erik has resigned from the board and from his role as CTO of Open Progress.
If memory serves, Erik has also held a board position on another open content related project (I can't remember which) - am I remembering correctly, and if so, does he still hold it? (I see no particular reason for him not to, as long as it's on his own time, but in the interests of transparency, I'd like to know.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, how does Erik serving on other non-profit boards, even of related organizations (assuming they are unpaid positions), an issue that is included in transparency regarding WMF? It would seem to be a personal choice that doesn't affect his performance as a WMF employee.
There are potential conflicts of interest when someone has a connection with multiple organisation, especially ones that could conceivably do business together.
Hoi, There are opportunities for smooth cooperation when multiple organisations exchange people in their advisory boards or boards. It cements the relation and provides for informal contacts that helps smooth the rough edges in the mutual business practices. High level contacts definetly help mutual strategies in a similar way that lower level contacts help mutual practices.
In other words, there are two sides to that coin. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 19, 2007 7:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity, how does Erik serving on other non-profit boards, even of related organizations (assuming they are unpaid positions), an issue that is included in transparency regarding WMF? It would seem to be a personal choice that doesn't affect his performance as a WMF employee.
There are potential conflicts of interest when someone has a connection with multiple organisation, especially ones that could conceivably do business together.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are opportunities for smooth cooperation when multiple organisations exchange people in their advisory boards or boards. It cements the relation and provides for informal contacts that helps smooth the rough edges in the mutual business practices. High level contacts definetly help mutual strategies in a similar way that lower level contacts help mutual practices.
In other words, there are two sides to that coin.
Of course. That's why I said I didn't see any problem with him keeping the position, it should just be transparent.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If memory serves, Erik has also held a board position on another open content related project (I can't remember which) - am I remembering correctly, and if so, does he still hold it? (I see no particular reason for him not to, as long as it's on his own time, but in the interests of transparency, I'd like to know.)
My dear Thomas,
You seem to like to comment on everything. Please show courtesy to your fellow listmembers by reading what they say. It has already been stated a 100 posts or so ago that Erik has resigned this other position!
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Waerth
Hmmm, still a belated congratulations Erik Moller (no umlaut on my keyboard, sorry) and good luck in you position. I hope you and Sue and the other staff members together with the board will solve longstanding problems. And will get around to do the things you summed up in your earlier mail.
Waerth
I think he meant a different one - that is, not the board position Sue announced Erik had already resigned.
On Dec 19, 2007 9:36 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If memory serves, Erik has also held a board position on another open content related project (I can't remember which) - am I remembering correctly, and if so, does he still hold it? (I see no particular reason for him not to, as long as it's on his own time, but in the interests of transparency, I'd like to know.)
My dear Thomas,
You seem to like to comment on everything. Please show courtesy to your fellow listmembers by reading what they say. It has already been stated a 100 posts or so ago that Erik has resigned this other position!
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Waerth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20/12/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If memory serves, Erik has also held a board position on another open content related project (I can't remember which) - am I remembering correctly, and if so, does he still hold it? (I see no particular reason for him not to, as long as it's on his own time, but in the interests of transparency, I'd like to know.)
My dear Thomas,
You seem to like to comment on everything. Please show courtesy to your fellow listmembers by reading what they say. It has already been stated a 100 posts or so ago that Erik has resigned this other position!
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Get a dictionary and look up the word "another". You may find it enlightening.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Get a dictionary and look up the word "another". You may find it enlightening.
Case in point here. In the midst of pleas for moderation (in both senses of the word) on the list, Thomas continues his masses of posts with unhelpful comments like this. Here is a prime candidate for moderation if anything is to be done, or shall we just threaten to threaten again?
Dominic
On 21/12/2007, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Get a dictionary and look up the word "another". You may find it enlightening.
Case in point here. In the midst of pleas for moderation (in both senses of the word) on the list, Thomas continues his masses of posts with unhelpful comments like this. Here is a prime candidate for moderation if anything is to be done, or shall we just threaten to threaten again?
So I should sit back and allow people to make false allegations against me? Not going to happen.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
If you want to comment on everything, then please read everything as well!!
Get a dictionary and look up the word "another". You may find it enlightening.
Case in point here. In the midst of pleas for moderation (in both senses of the word) on the list, Thomas continues his masses of posts with unhelpful comments like this. Here is a prime candidate for moderation if anything is to be done, or shall we just threaten to threaten again?
So I should sit back and allow people to make false allegations against me? Not going to happen.
Well, there's a loaded question if I ever saw one. The answer is clearly "no," but it's an incorrect assumption that "not sitting back" is the same as "being rude in response." Again, the idea that it is acceptable to respond to "false accusations" with snide comments is exactly what we need to put an end to. If someone says something you disagree with, assume good faith and talk it out calmly and patiently. This is basic stuff that we shouldn't have to debate.
Dominic
On Dec 21, 2007 1:29 PM, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
So I should sit back and allow people to make false allegations against me? Not going to happen.
The answer is clearly "no," but it's an incorrect assumption that "not sitting back" is the same as "being rude in response." Again, the idea that it is acceptable to respond to "false accusations" with snide comments is exactly what we need to put an end to. If someone says something you disagree with, assume good faith and talk it out calmly and patiently. This is basic stuff that we shouldn't have to debate.
Thanks, Dom.
-Kat
Well, there's a loaded question if I ever saw one. The answer is clearly "no," but it's an incorrect assumption that "not sitting back" is the same as "being rude in response." Again, the idea that it is acceptable to respond to "false accusations" with snide comments is exactly what we need to put an end to. If someone says something you disagree with, assume good faith and talk it out calmly and patiently. This is basic stuff that we shouldn't have to debate.
When someone complains about me not reading properly and it's all down to them not reading what I've said properly, it would be foolish to assume good faith. Clearly they were more interested in making a complaint than actually improving anything.
On 12/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there's a loaded question if I ever saw one. The answer is clearly "no," but it's an incorrect assumption that "not sitting back" is the same as "being rude in response." Again, the idea that it is acceptable to respond to "false accusations" with snide comments is exactly what we need to put an end to. If someone says something you disagree with, assume good faith and talk it out calmly and patiently. This is basic stuff that we shouldn't have to debate.
When someone complains about me not reading properly and it's all down to them not reading what I've said properly, it would be foolish to assume good faith. Clearly they were more interested in making a complaint than actually improving anything.
Just out of curiosity... What is the *third* organisation you consider Erik to be a member of? If it has been stated that Erik left WMF and one position on an unrelated organisation, which is the third organisation?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Just out of curiosity... What is the *third* organisation you consider Erik to be a member of? If it has been stated that Erik left WMF and one position on an unrelated organisation, which is the third organisation?
I can't remember the details - if you read my original question, I made that quite clear. The two positions he left were his position on the WMF board and he previous job, I'm talking about a second board position. I may be remembering completely wrong, in which case Erik just needs to say so.
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity... What is the *third* organisation you consider Erik to be a member of? If it has been stated that Erik left WMF and one position on an unrelated organisation, which is the third organisation?
I can't remember the details - if you read my original question, I made that quite clear. The two positions he left were his position on the WMF board and he previous job, I'm talking about a second board position. I may be remembering completely wrong, in which case Erik just needs to say so.
PS
Found it. He's on the Advisory Board of WikiEducator (http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Advisory_Board#Erik_Moeller). As it's just the advisory board and he doesn't hold any direct decision making powers, there isn't any great chance of a conflict of interest and, unless told otherwise, I'll assume he's kept the position. I see no reason for him to have stepped down from it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Well, there's a loaded question if I ever saw one. The answer is clearly "no," but it's an incorrect assumption that "not sitting back" is the same as "being rude in response." Again, the idea that it is acceptable to respond to "false accusations" with snide comments is exactly what we need to put an end to. If someone says something you disagree with, assume good faith and talk it out calmly and patiently. This is basic stuff that we shouldn't have to debate.
When someone complains about me not reading properly and it's all down to them not reading what I've said properly, it would be foolish to assume good faith. Clearly they were more interested in making a complaint than actually improving anything.
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Ec
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Someone opens your car door when you're stopped in traffic, points a gun at you and tells you to get out of the car. Do you assume they're trying to steal your car, or do you assume they're in a really really big hurry and genuinely need it?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Someone opens your car door when you're stopped in traffic, points a gun at you and tells you to get out of the car. Do you assume they're trying to steal your car, or do you assume they're in a really really big hurry and genuinely need it?
That guy has given overt proof of his lack of good faith. It's no longer a question of assumptions.
Ec
On 22/12/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Someone opens your car door when you're stopped in traffic, points a gun at you and tells you to get out of the car. Do you assume they're trying to steal your car, or do you assume they're in a really really big hurry and genuinely need it?
That guy has given overt proof of his lack of good faith. It's no longer a question of assumptions.
"Proof" is a purely mathematical concept, there is no such thing as proof in real life, just evidence to support a theory. It always comes down to assumptions, some assumptions are supported by evidence, some aren't, but they are all assumptions. In this case, the assumption of good fatih is not supported by the evidence, so would be a foolish assumption. The assumption of bad faith is supported by evidence and would be a wise assumption.
"Assume good faith" is a good policy when there is little or no evidence. Once there is evidence to the contrary, it becomes a foolish assumption.
On Dec 22, 2007 9:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Assume good faith" is a good policy when there is little or no evidence.
Only if the potential harm of mistakenly assuming good faith is small. Fortunately, such a situation is common, but it's not *always* the case.
On 22/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 9:26 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Assume good faith" is a good policy when there is little or no evidence.
Only if the potential harm of mistakenly assuming good faith is small. Fortunately, such a situation is common, but it's not *always* the case.
True. The exception that makes the rule, and all that.
Look, neither the complaints about Thomas nor his replies to each comment against him are on topic for the list or the Foundation itself.
Thomas, you appear to have seen and understood the message that some feel you're posting a bit excessively. I agree with those sentiments and hope that you can reduce your volume to a more appropriate manner without the list having to go on full moderation or impose a daily posting limit or something else silly like that. It's my impression that you're in general terms a reasonable person and not trying to irritate us here, so I hope that your awareness and some self control are a perfectly adequate solution.
Everyone else... Goes both ways. 8-)
Happy holidays.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:32 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Wow, do people honestly believe that? No, it couldn't be. I mean, anyone who followed that advice would quickly lose everything to some con artist in Nigeria, right?
Anthony wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 3:32 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's never foolish to assume good faith.
Wow, do people honestly believe that? No, it couldn't be. I mean, anyone who followed that advice would quickly lose everything to some con artist in Nigeria, right?
Those can be dealt with using the too-good-to-be-true criterion. For those of us whose finances are not adequate for "investing" in their schemes assuming good faith is moot.
Ec
On 21/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
When someone complains about me not reading properly and it's all down to them not reading what I've said properly, it would be foolish to assume good faith. Clearly they were more interested in making a complaint than actually improving anything.
Not at all. "Assume good faith" is a guideline to how the world actually works - it's essentially a restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." No-one thinks of themselves as a villain. You may wish to consider them too stupid to realise their own stupidity, however. Though saying so in as many words is likely to be taken only as a personal attack, because stupidity is bulletproof.
- d.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 21/12/2007, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Case in point here. In the midst of pleas for moderation (in both senses of the word) on the list, Thomas continues his masses of posts with unhelpful comments like this. Here is a prime candidate for moderation if anything is to be done, or shall we just threaten to threaten again?
So I should sit back and allow people to make false allegations against me? Not going to happen.
You have to admit that you do manage to irritate a significant number of people What you may honestly see as false allegations may be seen in quite a different and equally honest light by others. Sometimes it's not worth it to remark on every perceived offence.
Ec
You have to admit that you do manage to irritate a significant number of people What you may honestly see as false allegations may be seen in quite a different and equally honest light by others. Sometimes it's not worth it to remark on every perceived offence.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity? It's a good general principle. Stupidity or malice, I'd still rather not let someone bad mouth me and not do anything about it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You have to admit that you do manage to irritate a significant number of people What you may honestly see as false allegations may be seen in quite a different and equally honest light by others. Sometimes it's not worth it to remark on every perceived offence.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity? It's a good general principle. Stupidity or malice, I'd still rather not let someone bad mouth me and not do anything about it.
You're reminding me of the kid in the schoolyard that everybody picks on. The more he reacts to the slightest offence, the more he gets picked on. Restraint in reacting to comments that may only be obliquely viewed as offensive can have a profound effect in the way others on the list see you.
Ec
You're reminding me of the kid in the schoolyard that everybody picks on. The more he reacts to the slightest offence, the more he gets picked on. Restraint in reacting to comments that may only be obliquely viewed as offensive can have a profound effect in the way others on the list see you.
There is a difference between schoolyard bullying and making false accusations. The possibility of people taking them seriously is the main one.
On 12/19/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find the lack of public search less worrying than the complete lack of public discussion over what the position might do and why we might need someone as Deputy Director in the first place. One difference between WMF and other organizations is historically we *have* discussed things like this.
I don't believe that hiring and staffing decisions are something that belongs on a public mailing list. This is not a question of transparency, it's a question of competency and knowledge.
- Competency: Wikimedia has a strong culture of "everyone can do anything and comment on everything". It's a culture of self-selection and free association. A 14-year-old may make as meaningful contributions to an article about the British nobility as a 50-year-old tenured professor (or someone pretending to be one, *cough*).
And that's fine when you are dealing with a self-correcting encyclopedia that is built through a process of deliberation and consensus-building, and where it's an acceptable characteristic that any given article may be rubbish at any given time.
But an organization cannot function under the same parameters. You cannot "revert" a bad hiring decision; you cannot "rollback" money that's been spent. So you want to make sure that you have a competent core team that makes these decisions. Not every decision benefits from a scattershot approach of asking hundreds of self-selected interested individuals what they think: you end up spending too much time separating noise from signal.
- Knowledge about the needs of the organization will typically be concentrated among a fairly small group of people. This is also not a question of transparency: Our meritocratic systems of volunteer participation make it relatively easy for anyone willing to spend enough time to be in the loop on almost anything. [It could & should be easier still!] But only a tiny number of people have a full-time role in Wikimedia or can afford to spend a near-equivalent amount of time _caring_ about the needs of the organization. And even among these, knowledge and interests are specialized: into technology, chapters, administrative work, fundraising, etc.
It's the _job_ of the Executive Director to have a high level view of the operational needs of the Foundation. And if she is any good at her job, then she will concentrate and process in her mind a fairly large amount of knowledge on this topic: more so than anyone else. Increasing the number of people involved in the decision does not necessarily increase the quality of the decision; unconnected additional bits and pieces of information do not self-assemble into a hiring strategy.
The Foundation has gone through many dramatic transitions and disruptive changes throughout its history. What it needs at this point in time is a little bit of harmony and trust: We're trying to do something amazing, and we need to pull together to get it done. And whether we're paid or not, we all appreciate support, kindness and generosity.
Sue & I will try to be transparent about what we're doing & why. Though I haven't officially started yet, I am volunteering on a number of important fronts -- so much so that I won't have much time to spend on mailing list conversations. But I hope that I'll be able to give a reasonable length update about what I've been up to after the holidays. And once I'm officially on the job, I'll try to post updates on a regular basis. :-)
Thanks, Erik
I do want to thank Erik and Sue for these clarifications. A little clarification (especially on this list) can help to end a lot of speculation and worrying.
I don't believe that hiring and staffing decisions are something that belongs on a public mailing list. This is not a question of transparency, it's a question of competency and knowledge.
There are some details that certainly don't belong on a public mailing list. However, there are a lot of pieces of information that really could be handed out along the way, before you drop the bombshell that a board member has resigned and then been hired for a position that was never publicly announced.
This could be as simple as Sue saying "I have some ideas in mind about various new positions that I might like to create if I can find exactly the right people to do them". Or "We need more paid staff members for various reasons, and I am conducting a private search for qualified individuals." Very small and vague statements like that go a long way to making us *feel* like there is more openness and communication, and that makes everybody happier. Even Erik, who was elected to the board by the community on a platform of better transparency and communication could have said "I am entertaining the idea of dropping my other commitments (including possibly resigning from the board and quitting my current job) so that I can focus my attention on Wikimedia full-time". Instead of people accusing you of this or that underhanded dealing, you would have been received as a hero.
But an organization cannot function under the same parameters. You cannot "revert" a bad hiring decision; you cannot "rollback" money that's been spent. So you want to make sure that you have a competent core team that makes these decisions.
We do want to make sure that the board and the staff are competent, and It's hard to make sure of anything when there is no communication. It's hard to assume competency when all the decisions seem to be made in an avant garde "surprise" kind of way. Again, there would be fewer surprises if information flowed in our direction just a little more freely.
Increasing the number of people involved in the decision does not necessarily increase the quality of the decision;
No, and I wouldn't claim that it is. But nobody yet has asked to have been involved in the decision-making, people have only been asking to have been alerted to the possibility beforehand. We want more information, not necessarily more say.
Foundation-l may certainly not be the correct venue for these kinds of announcements, and if not then a proper venue needs to be found or even created. If you don't want other people to comment, make it read-only.
But I hope that I'll be able to give a reasonable length update about what I've been up to after the holidays. And once I'm officially on the job, I'll try to post updates on a regular basis. :-)
I sincerely hope so, and I'm glad that you recognize the need for this. Occasional updates, even short statements about what is going on would be highly appreciated.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 12/19/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
Even Erik, who was elected to the board by the community on a platform of better transparency and communication could have said "I am entertaining the idea of dropping my other commitments (including possibly resigning from the board and quitting my current job) so that I can focus my attention on Wikimedia full-time".
You know when my parents heard about this? Last week. Whether I would take this position depended upon a bunch of stuff, including the approval of my visa, and there was no point in publicly speculating about what I might or might not do when the end result wasn't certain at all. I'm all about sharing, but I don't intend to share with foundation-l before I talk to my mom & dad. ;-)
Instead of people accusing you of this or that underhanded dealing, you would have been received as a hero.
In our community, the line between hero and villain blurs easily. It sometimes reminds me of pro wrestling. :-)
Best, Erik
On Dec 19, 2007 6:59 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm all about sharing, but I don't intend to share with foundation-l before I talk to my mom & dad. ;-)
Nonsense! We should have known on the list before you did!
In our community, the line between hero and villain blurs easily. It sometimes reminds me of pro wrestling. :-)
Hmm. Perhaps we can get you some welcoming gifts...
On Dec 19, 2007 10:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 6:59 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
In our community, the line between hero and villain blurs easily. It sometimes reminds me of pro wrestling. :-)
Hmm. Perhaps we can get you some welcoming gifts...
How about a thick leather belt with a huge oversized gold buckle that says "WMF" on it?
and an "edit" button on the back, of course, that makes the buckle come off and it can be replaced with versions from various community members...
-- Ayelie (Editor at Large)
Ayelie Ayelie a écrit:
On Dec 19, 2007 10:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 6:59 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
In our community, the line between hero and villain blurs
easily. It
sometimes reminds me of pro wrestling. :-)
Hmm. Perhaps we can get you some welcoming gifts...
How about a thick leather belt with a huge oversized gold buckle that says "WMF" on it?
/me doesn't remember welcoming gifts...
and an "edit" button on the back, of course, that makes the buckle come off and it can be replaced with versions from various community members...
I CAN HAS?
Cary
You know when my parents heard about this? Last week. Whether I would take this position depended upon a bunch of stuff, including the approval of my visa, and there was no point in publicly speculating about what I might or might not do when the end result wasn't certain at all. I'm all about sharing, but I don't intend to share with foundation-l before I talk to my mom & dad. ;-)
That's fair, and I won't push this issue any further since there is no sense in it. In the future, please please try to keep the information flowing as much as is possible. Information and communication keeps morale high, paranoia low, and tempers calm. You know the community as well as anybody, so you must know the pros and cons of it all.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 20/12/2007, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
In our community, the line between hero and villain blurs easily. It sometimes reminds me of pro wrestling. :-)
There is no foundation! It's all a story! It's LIVE SCRIPTED THEATRESPORTS!
- d.
On Dec 19, 2007 3:52 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/19/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find the lack of public search less worrying than the complete lack of public discussion over what the position might do and why we might need someone as Deputy Director in the first place. One difference between WMF and other organizations is historically we *have* discussed things like this.
I don't believe that hiring and staffing decisions are something that belongs on a public mailing list. This is not a question of transparency, it's a question of competency and knowledge.
It is a question of transparency.
- Competency: Wikimedia has a strong culture of "everyone can do
anything and comment on everything". It's a culture of self-selection and free association. A 14-year-old may make as meaningful contributions to an article about the British nobility as a 50-year-old tenured professor (or someone pretending to be one, *cough*).
You can't let sleeping dogs lie, can you?
And that's fine when you are dealing with a self-correcting encyclopedia that is built through a process of deliberation and consensus-building, and where it's an acceptable characteristic that any given article may be rubbish at any given time.
But an organization cannot function under the same parameters. You cannot "revert" a bad hiring decision; you cannot "rollback" money that's been spent. So you want to make sure that you have a competent core team that makes these decisions. Not every decision benefits from a scattershot approach of asking hundreds of self-selected interested individuals what they think: you end up spending too much time separating noise from signal.
Requesting transparency is not the same as demanding wiki rules for hiring. This is a pathetic strawman.
- Knowledge about the needs of the organization will typically be
concentrated among a fairly small group of people. This is also not a question of transparency: Our meritocratic systems of volunteer participation make it relatively easy for anyone willing to spend enough time to be in the loop on almost anything. [It could & should be easier still!] But only a tiny number of people have a full-time role in Wikimedia or can afford to spend a near-equivalent amount of time _caring_ about the needs of the organization. And even among these, knowledge and interests are specialized: into technology, chapters, administrative work, fundraising, etc.
This is self-serving nonsense. Wikimedia is special, but the job skills needed for the position listed can be acquired any number of ways.
It's the _job_ of the Executive Director to have a high level view of the operational needs of the Foundation. And if she is any good at her job, then she will concentrate and process in her mind a fairly large amount of knowledge on this topic: more so than anyone else. Increasing the number of people involved in the decision does not necessarily increase the quality of the decision; unconnected additional bits and pieces of information do not self-assemble into a hiring strategy.
The Foundation has gone through many dramatic transitions and disruptive changes throughout its history. What it needs at this point in time is a little bit of harmony and trust: We're trying to do something amazing, and we need to pull together to get it done. And whether we're paid or not, we all appreciate support, kindness and generosity.
Ah, the poor Foundation. It needs love and trust, not oversight and criticism.
Give me a break!
Sue & I will try to be transparent about what we're doing & why.
Good start so far!
Though I haven't officially started yet, I am volunteering on a number of important fronts -- so much so that I won't have much time to spend on mailing list conversations. But I hope that I'll be able to give a reasonable length update about what I've been up to after the holidays. And once I'm officially on the job, I'll try to post updates on a regular basis. :-)
The funny thing is, Erik certainly may have been the best candidate for the job anyway. But by not having engaged in an open process and, worse, not being willing to admit they screwed up when they didn't, everyone involved (the Board, Sue, and Erik) are making things worse.
But please, don't ask for our harmony, trust, generosity, support, and kindness.
Earn it.
While I too appreciate the clarifications from Erik and Sue on the issue, I feel that this issue will have left a bad taste in my mouth in regards to Erik and Sue over the issue transparency from the ED's office.
I'm hearing a lot of promises and reassurances to be more transparent from here on out. I just hope to god someone follows through on that.
Chad H.
On Dec 19, 2007 10:31 AM, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 3:52 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/19/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find the lack of public search less worrying than the complete lack of public discussion over what the position might do and why we might need someone as Deputy Director in the first place. One difference between WMF and other organizations is historically we *have* discussed things like this.
I don't believe that hiring and staffing decisions are something that belongs on a public mailing list. This is not a question of transparency, it's a question of competency and knowledge.
It is a question of transparency.
- Competency: Wikimedia has a strong culture of "everyone can do
anything and comment on everything". It's a culture of self-selection and free association. A 14-year-old may make as meaningful contributions to an article about the British nobility as a 50-year-old tenured professor (or someone pretending to be one, *cough*).
You can't let sleeping dogs lie, can you?
And that's fine when you are dealing with a self-correcting encyclopedia that is built through a process of deliberation and consensus-building, and where it's an acceptable characteristic that any given article may be rubbish at any given time.
But an organization cannot function under the same parameters. You cannot "revert" a bad hiring decision; you cannot "rollback" money that's been spent. So you want to make sure that you have a competent core team that makes these decisions. Not every decision benefits from a scattershot approach of asking hundreds of self-selected interested individuals what they think: you end up spending too much time separating noise from signal.
Requesting transparency is not the same as demanding wiki rules for hiring. This is a pathetic strawman.
- Knowledge about the needs of the organization will typically be
concentrated among a fairly small group of people. This is also not a question of transparency: Our meritocratic systems of volunteer participation make it relatively easy for anyone willing to spend enough time to be in the loop on almost anything. [It could & should be easier still!] But only a tiny number of people have a full-time role in Wikimedia or can afford to spend a near-equivalent amount of time _caring_ about the needs of the organization. And even among these, knowledge and interests are specialized: into technology, chapters, administrative work, fundraising, etc.
This is self-serving nonsense. Wikimedia is special, but the job skills needed for the position listed can be acquired any number of ways.
It's the _job_ of the Executive Director to have a high level view of the operational needs of the Foundation. And if she is any good at her job, then she will concentrate and process in her mind a fairly large amount of knowledge on this topic: more so than anyone else. Increasing the number of people involved in the decision does not necessarily increase the quality of the decision; unconnected additional bits and pieces of information do not self-assemble into a hiring strategy.
The Foundation has gone through many dramatic transitions and disruptive changes throughout its history. What it needs at this point in time is a little bit of harmony and trust: We're trying to do something amazing, and we need to pull together to get it done. And whether we're paid or not, we all appreciate support, kindness and generosity.
Ah, the poor Foundation. It needs love and trust, not oversight and criticism.
Give me a break!
Sue & I will try to be transparent about what we're doing & why.
Good start so far!
Though I haven't officially started yet, I am volunteering on a number of important fronts -- so much so that I won't have much time to spend on mailing list conversations. But I hope that I'll be able to give a reasonable length update about what I've been up to after the holidays. And once I'm officially on the job, I'll try to post updates on a regular basis. :-)
The funny thing is, Erik certainly may have been the best candidate for the job anyway. But by not having engaged in an open process and, worse, not being willing to admit they screwed up when they didn't, everyone involved (the Board, Sue, and Erik) are making things worse.
But please, don't ask for our harmony, trust, generosity, support, and kindness.
Earn it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/12/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
I don't think it's really a matter of transparency and openness - they announced the hire, just not the plan to hire, I don't have any great problem with that. What seems unwise to me is that they appear to have hired someone without interviewing anyone else for the position (at least, I don't remember seeing an advert for the position). If they didn't consider anyone else, then how do we know Erik is the best person for the job?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
I don't think it's really a matter of transparency and openness - they announced the hire, just not the plan to hire, I don't have any great problem with that. What seems unwise to me is that they appear to have hired someone without interviewing anyone else for the position (at least, I don't remember seeing an advert for the position). If they didn't consider anyone else, then how do we know Erik is the best person for the job?
Please keep in mind that the head of staff, with authority to hire or fire staff, and negotiate all employement details, is now Sue. Not the board. The board has authority over Sue. Sue has authority over the staff. Pyramidal organization.
Thanks
Ant
On 18/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
I don't think it's really a matter of transparency and openness - they announced the hire, just not the plan to hire, I don't have any great problem with that. What seems unwise to me is that they appear to have hired someone without interviewing anyone else for the position (at least, I don't remember seeing an advert for the position). If they didn't consider anyone else, then how do we know Erik is the best person for the job?
Please keep in mind that the head of staff, with authority to hire or fire staff, and negotiate all employement details, is now Sue. Not the board. The board has authority over Sue. Sue has authority over the staff. Pyramidal organization.
Of course. By "they" assume I mean "the person or people at WMF, staff or board, that made the decision in question" - "they" is a little shorter ;).
Doesn't make it any more justified. If anything, it makes it even more underhanded. Erik recused himself over the issue of voting Sue to ED, then she turns around and promotes him to Deputy ED? It just screams that they were planning it, and the fact that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting. While I sympathize with Sue's aims to produce a productive and professional office, back-door job offers are not the way to go about it.
Chad.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:18 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to say "What the hell?" Am I the only one who is absolutely outraged by this? We hear Erik call for transparency and openness, yet he gets hired for a position there was no announcement about? I call BS.
I don't think it's really a matter of transparency and openness - they announced the hire, just not the plan to hire, I don't have any great problem with that. What seems unwise to me is that they appear to have hired someone without interviewing anyone else for the position (at least, I don't remember seeing an advert for the position). If they didn't consider anyone else, then how do we know Erik is the best person for the job?
Please keep in mind that the head of staff, with authority to hire or fire staff, and negotiate all employement details, is now Sue. Not the board. The board has authority over Sue. Sue has authority over the staff. Pyramidal organization.
Thanks
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 18, 2007 3:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't make it any more justified. If anything, it makes it even more underhanded. Erik recused himself over the issue of voting Sue to ED, then she turns around and promotes him to Deputy ED? It just screams that they were planning it, and the fact that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting. While I sympathize with Sue's aims to produce a productive and professional office, back-door job offers are not the way to go about it.
I agree with this sentiment. These kinds of shady circumstances, and the fact that the job was never advertised seems sneaky and dishonest.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 18, 2007 12:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't make it any more justified. If anything, it makes it even more underhanded. Erik recused himself over the issue of voting Sue to ED, then she turns around and promotes him to Deputy ED?
It just screams that they were planning it,
Possibly. One could ask them if it had come up in discussions rather than speculate. I would on first glance not care if the answer happened to be yes; Erik did abstain / recuse on the one possible conflict of interest vote regarding the situation, and the Board didn't adopt an anti-board-hire policy which would have been violated, though there was some discussion.
and the fact that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting.
Most executive level positions are not advertised. Some do not involve any wider search at all, but top-down recruitment efforts.
This is normal. There's nothing improper about it at all.
I assume that Sue discussed the issues around having such a person with the board and got their approval to hire someone for it.
While I sympathize with Sue's aims to produce a productive and professional office, back-door job offers are not the way to go about it.
There would be no outcry if the American Red Cross' president or executive director said "I want person X as my assistant director" and hired them without a search.
Real world hiring is mixtures of open searches, private searches, and private selections.
We also don't factually know that Sue didn't conduct a private search. You're assuming that. All we do know is that there wasn't a public search.
Regardless of whether there was a private search or a private selection, either case is ethical in business or charity employment.
Part of the implied social contract between organizations and senior management is that senior management are assumed to be ethical and have good business and personnel judgment. If you do not believe that Sue has good personnel judgment then either you have a perceptions problem or Sue should not be the ED. I see no sign that Sue has used poor judgment in asking Erik to fill this role - he's clearly an energetic and wide-horizons person who's worked both within our community and outside it on educational issues.
This is what we hired Sue to do - direct things. Complaining that she's done so is silly.
*We* didn't hire Sue, the board did. I don't remember having a say in her hire. Not to say she's doing a bad job necessarily, but trying to shift the blame back on us saying "Well we hired her to do this" isn't the right way to put it.
Now, perhaps I'm the only one here, but I have had some serious concerns raised about the ethical practices of Sue's position as ED given this situation. I understand that in many cases, a private search for a new employee can be conducted. But to do so in a manner that appears to be planned (which I have strong suspicions it was) and slightly underhanded in front of a community that has always (supposedly, last time I checked) been built around honesty and openness is upsetting to say the least. I'm not saying that Erik is bad for the job, he might be the best damn Deputy ED the Foundation will ever see. And if he is, so much the better.
I'm simply saying that doing things that *look* underhanded--even if they aren't--looks bad to this community (which has been known to be slightly paranoid) and makes me question someone's overall ethics.
Chad.
On Dec 18, 2007 3:55 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 12:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't make it any more justified. If anything, it makes it even more underhanded. Erik recused himself over the issue of voting Sue to ED, then she turns around and promotes him to Deputy ED?
It just screams that they were planning it,
Possibly. One could ask them if it had come up in discussions rather than speculate. I would on first glance not care if the answer happened to be yes; Erik did abstain / recuse on the one possible conflict of interest vote regarding the situation, and the Board didn't adopt an anti-board-hire policy which would have been violated, though there was some discussion.
and the fact that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting.
Most executive level positions are not advertised. Some do not involve any wider search at all, but top-down recruitment efforts.
This is normal. There's nothing improper about it at all.
I assume that Sue discussed the issues around having such a person with the board and got their approval to hire someone for it.
While I sympathize with Sue's aims to produce a productive and professional office, back-door job offers are not the way to go about it.
There would be no outcry if the American Red Cross' president or executive director said "I want person X as my assistant director" and hired them without a search.
Real world hiring is mixtures of open searches, private searches, and private selections.
We also don't factually know that Sue didn't conduct a private search. You're assuming that. All we do know is that there wasn't a public search.
Regardless of whether there was a private search or a private selection, either case is ethical in business or charity employment.
Part of the implied social contract between organizations and senior management is that senior management are assumed to be ethical and have good business and personnel judgment. If you do not believe that Sue has good personnel judgment then either you have a perceptions problem or Sue should not be the ED. I see no sign that Sue has used poor judgment in asking Erik to fill this role - he's clearly an energetic and wide-horizons person who's worked both within our community and outside it on educational issues.
This is what we hired Sue to do - direct things. Complaining that she's done so is silly.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Now, perhaps I'm the only one here, but I have had some serious concerns raised about the ethical practices of Sue's position as ED given this situation. I understand that in many cases, a private search for a new employee can be conducted. But to do so in a manner that appears to be planned (which I have strong suspicions it was) and slightly underhanded in front of a community that has always (supposedly, last time I checked) been built around honesty and openness is upsetting to say the least. I'm not saying that Erik is bad for the job, he might be the best damn Deputy ED the Foundation will ever see. And if he is, so much the better.
I don't know what you mean by "planned". It's natural to arrange a job some time in advance of it actually starting. It would be surprising that Sue and Erik were already in discussions about it by the time the board were voting to make her ED, in which case Erik was quite correct in recusing himself.
On Dec 19, 2007 7:55 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 12:33 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
and the fact that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting.
Most executive level positions are not advertised. Some do not involve any wider search at all, but top-down recruitment efforts.
This is normal. There's nothing improper about it at all.
This isn't a normal case of recruiting though, is it? It's a case of a person moving from an unpaid job to a paid job in the same organisation, and it's that that makes the apparent lack of any search for other applicants problematic.
Most executive level positions are not advertised. Some do not involve any wider search at all, but top-down recruitment efforts.
This is normal. There's nothing improper about it at all. ... Real world hiring is mixtures of open searches, private searches, and private selections.
We also don't factually know that Sue didn't conduct a private search. You're assuming that. All we do know is that there wasn't a public search.
What bothers me the most about this whole issue is the fact that it was kept a secret despite the inherent openness of this community. We are, ideologically, a very open community. Just because something is acceptable in the "real world" of business doesnt mean that it's a practice that we should be engaging in. What I have yet to hear is an explanation as to why things were done the way they were, and I have also yet to hear either a confirmation or denial about whether Erik and Sue had prior knowledge of this deal. I don't want to say there is anything wrong with it if there was a plan in place to do this, but there is a problem with trying to keep the whole thing a secret. Maybe Sue did conduct a private search, maybe she didn't, we certainly don't know. The problem, of course, is that we don't know because nobody is bothering to tell us. What exactly is the harm in saying "Sue is looking to appoint a deputy ED, She is considering hiring Erik for the job, if he accepts he will have to resign from the board"?
We are an organization that prides the freedom of knowledge and information. Secrecy and back-room dealings are contra to our goals and methods. Appointing Erik or any other community members or board members to any paid positions are certainly in Sue's ability, but the manner in which the community is being kept informed is hardly acceptable. A little honest communication really goes a long way, and the board members and staff members need to know that.
--Andrew Whitworth
Chad wrote:
It just screams that they were planning it,
Yes, we really hate people who plan ahead. When staff and board members wake up in the morning, they should ask the mailing list which way to comb their hair. Nothing must be planned behind our backs. It's a conspiracy!
Meanwhile, Brion orders dozens of new servers without asking this list what kind of RAM they should have. The servers keep running.
The worst of all is that Erik's new position totally ruins my idea for a conspiracy novel. Here's what I had in mind (not that I plan things ahead):
Google is worried that Wikimedia Foundation's goodness is overshining their own role as the don't-be-evil empire. They launch Knol, but it only becomes half successful. At their big 10th anniversary party (they started in 1998 so this should come up soon) they politely invite the Wikimedia Foundation, being newcomers in the Bay Area. But they have a plan: They succeed to lure Erik over to their side, and hire him to run Knol.
The next decade (300 pages or so) is a fierce fight between being good and being not evil. The old fight between free software and open source software is almost forgotten. Meanwhile, Erik combines Knol with Omegawiki, and this turns out to be so successful that in fact Knol becomes his tool to take over Google, rather than Erik and Knol being Google's tools for taking over Wikipedia. It is a fight between Erik (Möller) and Eric (Schmidt), where bit by bit, Erik turns Google's assets over to free licenses. When Larry and Sergey discover this, it's too late. Erik declares his right-to-fork and moves Google's cash resources over to the Wikimedia Foundation. Like a white knight he returns with golden treasures after having slayed the dragon.
On 18/12/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Chad wrote:
It just screams that they were planning it,
Yes, we really hate people who plan ahead. When staff and board members wake up in the morning, they should ask the mailing list which way to comb their hair. Nothing must be planned behind our backs. It's a conspiracy!
Meanwhile, Brion orders dozens of new servers without asking this list what kind of RAM they should have. The servers keep running.
The difference is that for the most part Brion can point to his record of keeping the servers running in order to do pretty much what he likes. The foundation as soon as it goes beyond shoestring ISP can't.
Hoi, When you argue that the WMF has been good at keeping the servers running, and when Sue has been hired to make sure that the WMF can do more than that, she is only starting to do her job. The community elects the board largely. The board has indicated that it cannot do this job and has been looking with mixed results for staff that takes over this responsibility.
It has been made clear that Sue has the authority to hire and fire. She has hired Erik. I am convinced that the board has been consulted on this. I am equally convinced that all legal and practical hurdles will have been examined and taken out of the way *before *the announcement was made. Just consider, when Erik would not be able to take this job for whatever reason, he would still be entitled to his position as board member. When the possibility of Erik taking this position would have been made public knowledge, I am sure that the same noises that are for or against whatever, would insist that it would be more "transparent" for him to resign his board position first. Things are not good or they are wrong.
I am sorry for selfish reasons that Erik is taking this job however it is none of my business where Erik decides to take a job. I expect that Sue will get a lot of support from Erik and as a result the WMF will get a lot of more work done. The only practical reservation that I have is that the board just lost a member who spend a lot of time doing all kinds of jobs for the foundation. I am not sure that a next board member will not be willing or able to spend as much time as Erik did. Then again, this is exactly what the board wants.
Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 18, 2007 10:59 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/12/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Chad wrote:
It just screams that they were planning it,
Yes, we really hate people who plan ahead. When staff and board members wake up in the morning, they should ask the mailing list which way to comb their hair. Nothing must be planned behind our backs. It's a conspiracy!
Meanwhile, Brion orders dozens of new servers without asking this list what kind of RAM they should have. The servers keep running.
The difference is that for the most part Brion can point to his record of keeping the servers running in order to do pretty much what he likes. The foundation as soon as it goes beyond shoestring ISP can't.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Couldn't agree more
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:52 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Erik's New Job
On 12/19/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I find the lack of public search less worrying than the complete lack of public discussion over what the position might do and why we might need someone as Deputy Director in the first place. One difference between WMF and other organizations is historically we *have* discussed things like this.
I don't believe that hiring and staffing decisions are something that belongs on a public mailing list. This is not a question of transparency, it's a question of competency and knowledge.
- Competency: Wikimedia has a strong culture of "everyone can do
anything and comment on everything". It's a culture of self-selection and free association. A 14-year-old may make as meaningful contributions to an article about the British nobility as a 50-year-old tenured professor (or someone pretending to be one, *cough*).
And that's fine when you are dealing with a self-correcting encyclopedia that is built through a process of deliberation and consensus-building, and where it's an acceptable characteristic that any given article may be rubbish at any given time.
But an organization cannot function under the same parameters. You cannot "revert" a bad hiring decision; you cannot "rollback" money that's been spent. So you want to make sure that you have a competent core team that makes these decisions. Not every decision benefits from a scattershot approach of asking hundreds of self-selected interested individuals what they think: you end up spending too much time separating noise from signal.
- Knowledge about the needs of the organization will typically be
concentrated among a fairly small group of people. This is also not a question of transparency: Our meritocratic systems of volunteer participation make it relatively easy for anyone willing to spend enough time to be in the loop on almost anything. [It could & should be easier still!] But only a tiny number of people have a full-time role in Wikimedia or can afford to spend a near-equivalent amount of time _caring_ about the needs of the organization. And even among these, knowledge and interests are specialized: into technology, chapters, administrative work, fundraising, etc.
It's the _job_ of the Executive Director to have a high level view of the operational needs of the Foundation. And if she is any good at her job, then she will concentrate and process in her mind a fairly large amount of knowledge on this topic: more so than anyone else. Increasing the number of people involved in the decision does not necessarily increase the quality of the decision; unconnected additional bits and pieces of information do not self-assemble into a hiring strategy.
The Foundation has gone through many dramatic transitions and disruptive changes throughout its history. What it needs at this point in time is a little bit of harmony and trust: We're trying to do something amazing, and we need to pull together to get it done. And whether we're paid or not, we all appreciate support, kindness and generosity.
Sue & I will try to be transparent about what we're doing & why. Though I haven't officially started yet, I am volunteering on a number of important fronts -- so much so that I won't have much time to spend on mailing list conversations. But I hope that I'll be able to give a reasonable length update about what I've been up to after the holidays. And once I'm officially on the job, I'll try to post updates on a regular basis. :-)
Thanks, Erik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org