[Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[whothis]

I agree with Brigitte completely.

Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with
your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the
staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like
we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for
that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.

Though I am surprised to see a "fellow" defending a staff decision and
calling himself a staff person earlier, does that mean the other
5-6-whatever fellows are staff too?

The staff can answer or ignore like Brigitte said or even better, as the
"Chief Community officer" said "we really should wait until Philippe gets
back..." for answers.

Elizabeth


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and
> >procedures
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Demanding  answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about
> an
> > upcoming  change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> > announcement.  The latter does no harm. The former can derail a
> productive
> > discussion about  a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
> >
>
> I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive
> discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably
> and
> the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being
> repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems
> otherwise,
> it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only
> bring
> discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the
> gossip network.  I take issue with the implication that you would not
> object to
> someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being
> spread here.
>
>
> I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they
> had
> originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
> information
> from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
> because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking
> pains
> for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed
> a
> continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite
> what I
> would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he
> is
> still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
> issue
> altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
> efforts
> and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard
> things to
> do; thank you.
>
>
> The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is
> not
> because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive
> tone
> on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend
> of
> responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral
> questions
> leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of
> wrongdoing
> in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of
> seeking
> information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other.
>  Of
> course, gossiping is most effective of all.  But I for one, care enough
> about
> the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to
> integrate
> newcomers as to prefer ignorance.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>