I am pleased to announce that we are recruiting for a Developer.
Details are available on the UK wiki.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_job_description#About_Wikimedia_UK
Please email me for an application form.
Jon Davies
P.S. Please feel free to share this with sympathetic organisations and friends!
On 25 June 2012 14:44, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am pleased to announce that we are recruiting for a Developer.
Disappointed that a community view expressed here has been brushed
aside. The Board members who participated in the discussion on this list did not convince me, at least, that the ideas from January 2010, that I heard debated, had really been subjected to recent scrutiny. Quite the opposite.
Charles
A matter of timescales - getting really close to the fundraiser and other things. Lots of opinions from different people and yet a decision had to be made. Not an easy decision to make and those making it have shown leaderships I think. You can't please all the people all of the time and this discussion has been going on for all of the nine months I have been here. A long gestation, time for a baby.
Let's see how it goes.
On 25 June 2012 15:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 25 June 2012 14:44, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am pleased to announce that we are recruiting for a Developer.
Disappointed that a community view expressed here has been brushed
aside. The Board members who participated in the discussion on this list did not convince me, at least, that the ideas from January 2010, that I heard debated, had really been subjected to recent scrutiny. Quite the opposite.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 25 June 2012 15:54, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
A matter of timescales - getting really close to the fundraiser and other things. Lots of opinions from different people and yet a decision had to be made. Not an easy decision to make and those making it have shown leaderships I think. You can't please all the people all of the time and this discussion has been going on for all of the nine months I have been here. A long gestation, time for a baby.
Let's see how it goes.
Shrug. MediaWiki bug fixes is in line with the purposes of the Wikimedia
movement as generally conceived. It is a bit more tortuous in terms of the charity's. If I were a member I'd raise this at the next AGM.
Charles
On 25 June 2012 15:54, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
A matter of timescales - getting really close to the fundraiser and other things. Lots of opinions from different people and yet a decision had to be made. Not an easy decision to make and those making it have shown leaderships I think. You can't please all the people all of the time and this discussion has been going on for all of the nine months I have been here. A long gestation, time for a baby.
Two points for fairness (to both sides):
* Mike contacted me the other day to organise a time for us to chat, which we will be doing. I'm hopeful that there is still time to reconsider some of the options at hand. I think Mike's doing a great job in a difficult situation.
* However; there didn't seem to be a lot of discussion r.e. the decision (I appreciate some of it might have happened internally, but I obviously have no knowledge of that). I posted in detail on the WMUK wik development strategy talk page which generated zero responses. And although Mike responded, very realistically, to my concerns there were still others, larger, that weren't responded to by anyone - there were a number of key things that could have been done to at least tweak/improve the job description. None of which happened.
I still think this is a really poor approach and a big waste of funds which will hampers us in the medium term. But hopefully Mike and I will have a fruitful discussion tomorrow :)
As a point of interest; what *exactly* does need to be done for the fundraiser? I've seen no actual specification; and what I was suggesting when we last had these discussions is that we outline more specifically the needs in this area.
I'd really like to see that specification publicised as part of the process of involving the community in the development side of things.
And if that specification doesn't exist I'd question why a developer is being hired ;)
Tom
On 25 June 2012 16:10, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
As a point of interest; what *exactly* does need to be done for the fundraiser? I've seen no actual specification; and what I was suggesting when we last had these discussions is that we outline more specifically the needs in this area.
Technical fundraising is a tough area to summarise, though. I'm somewhat
surprised to see that CiviCRM is still in the frame. The old logic was no doubt that the WMF used it, and so it was probably fit for purpose. Well, they hired Rand Montoya, who had five years experience as database manager to go on. Perhaps he had time to read the documentation, as was; I imagine he got the system set up and tested well before the fundraiser. Perhaps (this seems likely to me) he talked directly to CiviCRM devs rather than tried to read the documentation.
Charles
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
As a point of interest; what *exactly* does need to be done for the fundraiser? I've seen no actual specification; and what I was suggesting when we last had these discussions is that we outline more specifically the needs in this area.
I am not a technical person, so my specification isn't going to be very technical, but the work that needs to be done is: * Set up landing pages on a Wikimedia UK-owned domain that will do what https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/L11_WMUK_email/GB/en does * Create donation forms on that domain which will take the information provided by a donor on the landing page and allow them to fulfill a donation via Paypal or SmartDebit, in a way which automatically populates CiviCRM with data on completed transactions * Via CiviCRM or otherwise, automate the sending of a personalised thankyou email to donors who have completed a transaction * Either develop or manage the development of extensions to CiviCRM which will streamline the way we handle Direct Debit donations and Gift Aid in the database, enabling us to make greater use of CiviCRM 's built-in reporting tools * Ensure all of the above still works at the expected loads for the beginning of the fundraser * Provide ongoing technical support so that if something breaks while people are trying to give us money, it gets fixed.
I hope this makes sense!
Regards,
Chris
On Jun 25, 2012 3:40 PM, "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 25 June 2012 14:44, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I am pleased to announce that we are recruiting for a Developer.
Disappointed that a community view expressed here has been brushed
aside. The Board members who participated in the discussion on this list did not convince me, at least, that the ideas from January 2010, that I heard debated, had really been subjected to recent scrutiny. Quite the opposite.
The points raised recently weren't new. Mike and I have been debating whether to hire one jack-of-all-trades employee or several specialist contractors for the past 2 years (mostly on the uk wiki).
It may surprise you to hear that Mike was the one arguing for contractors, so this certainly isn't a matter of refusing to budge from your first decision.
On 25 June 2012 18:49, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It may surprise you to hear that Mike was the one arguing for contractors, so this certainly isn't a matter of refusing to budge from your first decision.
Is Mike's view that having a contractor in to fix the SSL problem would cost too much generally shared? The SSL does impact on the credibility of the fundraiser, which raised £1M last time and one would hope that number would go up in future. As a percentage of one year's take, what is "too much"?
Charles
On 25 June 2012 19:18, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Is Mike's view that having a contractor in to fix the SSL problem would cost too much generally shared? The SSL does impact on the credibility of the fundraiser, which raised £1M last time and one would hope that number would go up in future. As a percentage of one year's take, what is "too much"?
The decision isn't between hiring a contractor to fix the SSL and not fixing it. The decision is between hiring a contractor to fix the SSL and hiring a general technical employee to, among other things, fix the SSL. A general tech person may have to spend some time reading up on SSL before they can fix it, but they'll still be able to fix it.
On 25 June 2012 19:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2012 19:18, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Is Mike's view that having a contractor in to fix the SSL problem would
cost
too much generally shared? The SSL does impact on the credibility of the fundraiser, which raised £1M last time and one would hope that number
would
go up in future. As a percentage of one year's take, what is "too much"?
The decision isn't between hiring a contractor to fix the SSL and not fixing it. The decision is between hiring a contractor to fix the SSL and hiring a general technical employee to, among other things, fix the SSL. A general tech person may have to spend some time reading up on SSL before they can fix it, but they'll still be able to fix it.
Could you answer the question? You are making an assertion which rather
begs the question why a community member hasn't done exactly that.
I wanted to analyse the difference between what you were saying about Mike being will to hire contractors, and the fact that he is not willing to do so in a matter that actually now impacts, via the fundraiser, on the livelihoods of six employees (as it will be when the dev is hired). I want to understand the decision-making process Mike employs.
I thought I might be able to understand that much. The hiring decision is apparently too complicated to explain to the community on this list, so let's start with just one instance of what is involved.
Charles
On 25 June 2012 19:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Could you answer the question? You are making an assertion which rather begs the question why a community member hasn't done exactly that.
No, I can't answer the question because it is based on a false premise. As you know, you can prove anything you like if you start from a false premise.
I wanted to analyse the difference between what you were saying about Mike being will to hire contractors, and the fact that he is not willing to do so in a matter that actually now impacts, via the fundraiser, on the livelihoods of six employees (as it will be when the dev is hired). I want to understand the decision-making process Mike employs.
I thought I might be able to understand that much. The hiring decision is apparently too complicated to explain to the community on this list, so let's start with just one instance of what is involved.
As I've explained, the SSL will get fixed. There is no question of whether WMUK (this isn't Mike's decision, he's just the one that did the hard work of drafting the job description) is willing to fix it. The question is simply over the best way to go about fixing it. The chapter has decided to go about fixing it by hiring a general technical member of staff.
Leadership is often not about making the right decision, but just about making a decision. By far the worst outcome would be to spend ages debating this and end up not having anyone in time to fix anything before the fundraiser. As Jon has said, the board have shown excellent leadership by making a decision when a decision needed to be made. Whether it was the optimal decision really isn't important when compared to the downside of not making a decision at all.
On 25 June 2012 19:39, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2012 19:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Could you answer the question? You are making an assertion which rather
begs
the question why a community member hasn't done exactly that.
No, I can't answer the question because it is based on a false premise. As you know, you can prove anything you like if you start from a false premise.
I wanted to analyse the difference between what you were saying about
Mike
being will to hire contractors, and the fact that he is not willing to
do so
in a matter that actually now impacts, via the fundraiser, on the livelihoods of six employees (as it will be when the dev is hired). I
want
to understand the decision-making process Mike employs.
I thought I might be able to understand that much. The hiring decision is apparently too complicated to explain to the community on this list, so let's start with just one instance of what is involved.
As I've explained, the SSL will get fixed. There is no question of whether WMUK (this isn't Mike's decision, he's just the one that did the hard work of drafting the job description) is willing to fix it. The question is simply over the best way to go about fixing it. The chapter has decided to go about fixing it by hiring a general technical member of staff.
Leadership is often not about making the right decision, but just about making a decision. By far the worst outcome would be to spend ages debating this and end up not having anyone in time to fix anything before the fundraiser. As Jon has said, the board have shown excellent leadership by making a decision when a decision needed to be made. Whether it was the optimal decision really isn't important when compared to the downside of not making a decision at all.
OK, I have an answer of sorts. To me fixing the SSL looks urgent. So one
could say that paying the going commercial rate to have it fixed, by someone who knows what he or she is doing, is a good idea. Then the hiring of a technical person (I think a CTO is needed right now, not a dev, but that appears to be a minority view) could proceed uncluttered by that decision. What you are telling me, Tom, is that this is not the way the Board thinks.
Charles
SSL *is* fixed, or at least the issue has been worked around. The issue here is the long-term maintenance of SSL, to ensure that it continues to work and can be quickly fixed if it breaks, and can be extended as needed - particularly during the critical fundraising period. Having a staff member sat in the office monitoring and able to quickly fix things as needed solves that problem in a very efficient manner. Having a contractor would solve it, but in slower, more expensive and less long-term manner.
Thanks, Mike
On 25 Jun 2012, at 19:48, Charles Matthews wrote:
On 25 June 2012 19:39, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote: On 25 June 2012 19:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Could you answer the question? You are making an assertion which rather begs the question why a community member hasn't done exactly that.
No, I can't answer the question because it is based on a false premise. As you know, you can prove anything you like if you start from a false premise.
I wanted to analyse the difference between what you were saying about Mike being will to hire contractors, and the fact that he is not willing to do so in a matter that actually now impacts, via the fundraiser, on the livelihoods of six employees (as it will be when the dev is hired). I want to understand the decision-making process Mike employs.
I thought I might be able to understand that much. The hiring decision is apparently too complicated to explain to the community on this list, so let's start with just one instance of what is involved.
As I've explained, the SSL will get fixed. There is no question of whether WMUK (this isn't Mike's decision, he's just the one that did the hard work of drafting the job description) is willing to fix it. The question is simply over the best way to go about fixing it. The chapter has decided to go about fixing it by hiring a general technical member of staff.
Leadership is often not about making the right decision, but just about making a decision. By far the worst outcome would be to spend ages debating this and end up not having anyone in time to fix anything before the fundraiser. As Jon has said, the board have shown excellent leadership by making a decision when a decision needed to be made. Whether it was the optimal decision really isn't important when compared to the downside of not making a decision at all.
OK, I have an answer of sorts. To me fixing the SSL looks urgent. So one could say that paying the going commercial rate to have it fixed, by someone who knows what he or she is doing, is a good idea. Then the hiring of a technical person (I think a CTO is needed right now, not a dev, but that appears to be a minority view) could proceed uncluttered by that decision. What you are telling me, Tom, is that this is not the way the Board thinks.
Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 25 June 2012 19:48, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, I have an answer of sorts. To me fixing the SSL looks urgent. So one could say that paying the going commercial rate to have it fixed, by someone who knows what he or she is doing, is a good idea. Then the hiring of a technical person (I think a CTO is needed right now, not a dev, but that appears to be a minority view) could proceed uncluttered by that decision. What you are telling me, Tom, is that this is not the way the Board thinks.
I don't see how the decision about hiring a technical staffer is "cluttered" by the fact that we have jobs we need the technical staff to do... if there weren't such jobs, we wouldn't be hiring someone to do them.
On 25 June 2012 20:10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 June 2012 19:48, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
OK, I have an answer of sorts. To me fixing the SSL looks urgent. So one could say that paying the going commercial rate to have it fixed, by
someone
who knows what he or she is doing, is a good idea. Then the hiring of a technical person (I think a CTO is needed right now, not a dev, but that appears to be a minority view) could proceed uncluttered by that
decision.
What you are telling me, Tom, is that this is not the way the Board
thinks.
I don't see how the decision about hiring a technical staffer is "cluttered" by the fact that we have jobs we need the technical staff to do... if there weren't such jobs, we wouldn't be hiring someone to do them.
Well, Mike has explained the current position now, so we don't need the
labour the hypotheticals. I only wish I had the technical chops to be reassured.
Charles
SSL might be a bad example. It's only a couple of hours work to fix; I offered to do it once.
Tom Morton
On 25 Jun 2012, at 19:18, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 25 June 2012 18:49, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It may surprise you to hear that Mike was the one arguing for contractors, so this certainly isn't a matter of refusing to budge from your first decision.
Is Mike's view that having a contractor in to fix the SSL problem would cost too much generally shared? The SSL does impact on the credibility of the fundraiser, which raised £1M last time and one would hope that number would go up in future. As a percentage of one year's take, what is "too much"?
Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Stevie will - am away from my PC
On 8 July 2012 11:35, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
Hi Jon,
Can you send me an application form.All the best,
Richard.______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org