Christopher Mahan wrote:
Jimbo, let me remind you how wikis work: you see something that needs doing, and you do it. The details gets sorted out later. (I never thought I would have to say that to you.)
Yes, of course, but that is not the issue here as I see it.
The Wiki way is that you trust people, you listen to people, and you don't engage in power plays when you're criticized.
If Erik is going to be micromanaged in his daily goings and comings about this, that, or the other, then, he's not an Officer of the Foundation.
I think this is not really where the problem lies. This isn't about Erik being micromanaged, it is about him responding to questions and very mild criticism by accusing people of micromanaging and suggesting Anthere resign from the board.
That is not the wiki way of trust and co-operation.
I agree completely that we should reward people for boldness, and that we can not and should not micromanage. I think having a discussion about the exact parameters of that can be worthwhile, but I also do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular case. The problem as I see it is unprofessionalism in terms of cutting off such a discussion by turning it instantly to questions of who should resign.
--Jimbo
On 8/14/05 8:48 AM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think this is not really where the problem lies. This isn't about Erik being micromanaged, it is about him responding to questions and very mild criticism by accusing people of micromanaging and suggesting Anthere resign from the board.
That is not the wiki way of trust and co-operation.
I agree completely that we should reward people for boldness, and that we can not and should not micromanage. I think having a discussion about the exact parameters of that can be worthwhile, but I also do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular case. The problem as I see it is unprofessionalism in terms of cutting off such a discussion by turning it instantly to questions of who should resign.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I've been lurking here for a while, haven't edited in a while because of some life changes and an elevated level of Wiki-stress but conversations like this one that's been bantering about for days is one of the reasons I've gone on hiatus. When it penetrates to the upper-most levels it makes you think.
Jimmy, I don't know if you can consider yourself as objective on this because if you see Anthere's treatise in response to Erik's report as "mild criticism" I shudder to think of what severe criticism would be. In her Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:52:38 (UTC) email she:
1) Chided Erik in a manner I thought was very condescending: "You were supposed not (sic)" to do this, "you were supposed not" to do that.
2) Immediately after the condescension launched into the "very serious problem" of the definition of Erik's role (i.e. "I don't like how you're doing your job, let's change it)
3) Finally, in this email it was Anthere who made the first shot across the bow regarding who should resign or be fired:
Ultimately, we meet two problems, first, some decisions will be forced on the board, because it is embarassing to admit an officer pushed a decision with a partner or a sponsor which is not actually supported. Another outcome is that we have to dismiss you in public, or in front of the partner or sponsor. Both are equally embarassing (for you, for us, for the organisation) and non constructive outcome.
In one email we have rebuke of what he did, a suggestion he needs to have his job changed and then allusion to being "dismissed in public" - I believe those would all fall under the definition of stern criticism and certainly micro-management. As an outsider, given the rather innocuous nature of the exchange before Anthere's treatise I would have to say she came loaded for bear on this one.
Now I spent some time in public service which is a bit similar to the Foundation now and there's things you do in public and things that you don't. As a board member criticizing one of your officers point blank in public puts egg on that officer's face and makes your organization look like it engages in open infighting. I would have suggested a more discrete method of discourse on this up front. Now, if that doesn't settle things, by all means, gore each other in public but as it stands this entire exchange and the constant back and forth makes the organization look bad. I think some need to take a step back, a deep breath, ask themselves exactly what this disagreement is regarding in the first place and try to go from there.
--Guy (en User:Wgfinley)
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Wiki way is that you trust people, you listen to people, and you don't engage in power plays when you're criticized.
Knowing how to respond to criticism is, well, an art, and one that takes much practice before getting right. I also think that it's hard enough for native english speakers. It is much more frustrating to try to respond to criticism well using a foreign language and coming from a different cultural background. I call for the exercise of patience.
If Erik is going to be micromanaged in his daily goings and
comings
about this, that, or the other, then, he's not an Officer of the Foundation.
I think this is not really where the problem lies. This isn't about Erik being micromanaged, it is about him responding to questions and very mild criticism by accusing people of micromanaging and suggesting Anthere resign from the board.
I think there's some disagreement between Anthere and Erik that predates the thread. They need to settle that between themselves. I also understand how Anthere feels, and I would call on Erik to be kind with her. Ant, on the other hand, needs to remember that when the rider wants to horse to run, the rider shouldn't pull on the reins.
That is not the wiki way of trust and co-operation.
Actually, I think wikis work in spite of lack of trust and cooperation. There's been plenty of lack of trust and cooperation, and yes, the road gets bumpy, but the wiki trucks on. Amazing, no?
I'll agree though that it makes things much more pleasant.
I agree completely that we should reward people for boldness, and that we can not and should not micromanage. I think having a discussion about the exact parameters of that can be worthwhile, but I also do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular case. The problem as I see it is unprofessionalism in terms of cutting off such a discussion by turning it instantly to questions of who should resign.
I don't recall Erik calling for Anthere's resignation. I think I would have caught that. What he said is that he felt _he_ would have to resign...
As far as professionalism, I think we can do better than that. Many professionals I know do it for the money. I see wikipedians as an extended family of people from all walks of life who share a common dream. Yes there are family feuds, the odd uncle (you know who you are Ed), and the terrible kids who never tire of the same old pranks, but there is also the bond of friendship and common cause that drives us all to support and encourage each other to be better and to work harder.
Many people express disgust at the underhanded tactics, political maneuverings, and downright lies that occasionally pepper our mailing lists. I too find them unpalatable. However, people are able to rise above these sordid details and see the future shining ahead like sunlight between tree leaves on the trail ahead.
It is through adversity that we shape our character. Both individually and as a group, wikipedians are gaining knowledge, wisdom, and skills in dealing with difficult issues. I know that personally, I have learned a lot about myself and have improved in capacities through my involvement in wikipedia. I know it's not always easy, but I keep going, and things get better. Much better.
I would like my fellow wikipedians to think of the implications of our work on our civilization, and then rise above petty infighting.
Please forgive my preachy tone, I haven't had coffee yet :)
Erik, great job. Keep it up. I for one appreciate your efforts.
Ant, great job. Keep it up. I for one appreciate your efforts.
Jimbo, ditto.
Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I would like to say something, because
* first the issue has been discussed at the board meeting yesterday and outcome will be explained in a couple of days, so I do not think it necessary that people go on discussing it
* second because I think that I will take a wikibreak beginning tomorrow for an unknown time (probably a week or so, possibly longer). I will drop by from time to time for a short time, but I do not think the level of micromanagement is such that it will be a problem :-)
Essentially, what I would like to say is
I listened carefully to the people saying we were sticking too much with micromanagement. I do not fully agree with this, as I feel that adding more officers is precisely going in the sense of decreasing as much as we can micromanagement. Soon, I hope, we'll add a chapter coordinator, and I hope even more responsabilities can be taken by officers themselves, rather than by the board. For now, I feel that we are not being heavy on them, but if we are, it is to the officers themselves, collectively or individually, to tell us we are. I try myself to be light (I may fail though), for example, yesterday we approved the budget set up by Maveric after small modifications, decided of the amount of funds to raise... and the issue is now entirely in the hand of Maveric. As far as I am concerned, if he asks my help, I will try to give him, but otherwise, it is his business, to organise with whoever he wants, the way he wants. I know he will do it well, so why would I be on his back ? And if we make only 180 instead of 200, we'll find another way to fill up the hole. Naturally, there are some areas we like to take care... so quite naturally, we appreciate to get involved. That does not necessary mean we "micromanage" officers, but rather that we like to work in a certain area with them, just as I appreciate to do regular editing on the projects. Similarly, what Jimbo really likes doing is setting up deals, doing business development. He is good at it, so it makes sense he does it. Does that mean that another also willing to do it is "micromanaged" ? I do not think so. There is a big difference between "micromanagement" and "collaboration".
So, in short, while I am ready to hear more opinions about this comment on micromanagement, I must say that currently, it is not a comment I recognise as frankly valid. But well...
The second point is this one. While I recognise as valid the fact that Erik and I are very often in disagreement and accept that this is a bit problematic in a team, I totally, firmly and very strongly reject the idea that the whole event is ONLY a conflict between Erik and I.
I have always been a person who refuses manipulation and who speak frankly about problems. I refuse to be a coward. I refuse to be a carpet. When there is a problem, I try to find a way to fix it. If it does not improve, I refuse to put my head in the sand and to wait that someone else has the courage to fix the issue for me. This is right what I tried to do. When I decided to run for the board, it was by NO mean with the intend of being a puppet for Jimbo, and by no mean either to hide behind him for any controversial issue. When I disagree with Jimbo or thinks he is doing wrong, I tell him. When I think an officer is doing wrong, I tell him. When I hear many people complaining about an officer and nothing is happening, I do not take a refill of ice-cream. At the risk of appearing to be a real bitch (which I clearly am now for some people), I prefer to say it, even if I know the person I am talking about is the most eloquent on Wikipedia and I know I will be damaged myself. If some of you want to believe this is ONLY a conflict of person, it is fine. I think it is still worth to do it for those who know it is not only or simply a conflict of person. And worth saying things openly for the sake of the organisation, rather than letting people falsely believe we are living in barbie's pink paradise. We are not.
Aside from this, why am I taking a break ?
First because I have plenty of people at home. Second because though I might appear an unreasonable bitch, I have feelings and feel sad of the whole situation Third because I have some tension problems, and obgyn recommand rest and quiet for safety. I am far from it right now :-)
I renew my confidence in Jimbo and Angela as well as confidence and appreciation in those currently taking care of Foundation issues.
Anthere
Hoi, Anthere I have said it and I say it again. You are a person that inspired me immensly. It is my apreciation for who you are and what you have done that made me not stand for a position on the board. Please take good care of yourself because if you do not, we cannot benefit from your presence and your joie de vivre.
It is unfortunate that there is this public spat. But in one way it is better to have it in the open than to have an even more vicious fight behind the scenes. I do very much apreciate that it hurts. I do because I know.
Take care and know that I apreciate you / love you a lot :)
Groetjes, Gerard
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org