[Foundation-l] disconnected

[Milos Rancic]

I was really surprised this morning by the fact that during the recent
days internal-l has beaten foundation-l by activity; which means that
I didn't have enough time to read everything.

Because of that, I would appreciate (as many others, I suppose) a
little digest about the present conflict.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:12, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> (after a bit of thinking, I'll post this to foundation-l after all. As a bit
> of context, the whole fundraiser discussion continued on internal-l and a
> discussion emerged about disconnect between the board of the WMF and the
> chapters, of which the letter would be an example. Based on that discussion,
> I wrote the email below. As far as I am aware, it contains no confidential
> information, so after consideration, this would be a better place actually)
> ----
> I think we should be honest with ourselves here: yes there is disconnect -
> but it is not /just/ about the foundation. It is a wider problem than that -
> but I agree with Dan that this *is* a typical example. Not because of the
> direction of the decision even (which I totally disagree with as it is
> explained by Sue, but agree with as it is explained privately by some board
> members, like noted before) but how it is taken.
>
> I could not have imagined the board changing its bylaws without consulting
> the community (not asking approval, but consulting) a few years ago. I could
> not have imagined these important decisions to be taken without serious
> discussions with those involved. And that someone then notes "we could have
> discussed it but honestly they wouldn't have changed their mind anyway" (my
> interpretation) is the most striking for where we are today. Small groups of
> people sitting in their ivory towers taking decisions. Sure they do their
> best to come out and talk with people, but it too often fails.
>
> I have seen it too many times. I know of several chapters too, which are
> malfunctioning because they are not able to connect to the editing community
> any longer - Wikimedia Nederland has been there too (I hope I'm correct to
> speak in the past sense). Listening is hard, involving is even harder. I see
> it with the board even stronger - some individuals are still working hard to
> engage in conversations, but it is no longer default procedure. Another
> striking example is that we had to learn about this discussion from Stu's
> blog - and nobody bothered to involve others in that discussion by sending
> an email to internal or foundation-l.
>
> It is happening in chapcoms, it is happening in staff (I cannot count
> anymore how often I got into the position that I have to defend what Sue and
> several other people in the foundation are doing and the saleries they are
> alledgedly getting for that) - we all seem to do an extremely bad job in
> communicating /with/ the community - not /to/ the community. I have been
> saying this a lot of times during the chapters meeting - but I know there
> were no foundation people there unfortunately (another example?) so let me
> repeat it just once more: talking to people will not suffice, will not
> involve them. We are no priests or teachers that will tell them what to do,
> but we can motivate them and cooperate with them and be part of it by
> talking with them, involving them in conversations.
>
> I know it is very hard to actually accomplish it - and I know it is easy to
> say that you're trying and will try even harder - but that won't be good
> enough.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>
> Date: 2011/8/11
> Subject: Re: [Internal-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters
> To: "Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription)"
> <internal-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Well, I think this entire debate over the fundraising letter is a great
> example. The board and office seriously miscalculated how strongly the
> chapters would feel about such a drastic change. I think, frankly, you still
> do. The "us vs. them" tone of these discussions, especially from some of
> Erik and Jan Bart's emails, appears to me to be causing people to become
> defensive and entrenched in their beliefs.
>
> The fact that this is all being done last minute when many these issues were
> known back as of the 2010 fundraiser* sends the message to me that nobody
> adequately expressed to the chapters what frustrations the WMF was facing,
> at least not in any sort of way that would have prompted a thoughtful series
> of responses like we have seen here.
>
> Then we see things like Jimmy saying "WMF owns Wikipedia" -- something that
> I believe we have always shied away from saying on ComCom due to the various
> interpretations of "what does own mean?"; the side dispute with Thomas
> blaming his chapter for not living up to certain standards that they may or
> may not have been actually obligated to do….
>
> I should have probably said "In my view, this is an example of a growing
> disconnect…" because I certainly can't speak for others. But I think broadly
> looking at this whole debacle, it's hard to see anything BUT a disconnect.**
>
>
> *(such as the inadequacy of the fundraising agreement; as well I vaguely
> remember there being several chapters that were not in compliance at some
> point and we had discussions about it, but it was so long ago and I don't
> have access to any notes at the time I couldn't say for sure)
>
> *notwithstanding recent alternative proposals and attempts to bridge the
> gap, of course.
>
> -Dan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>