[Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)

[Birgitte SB]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:07:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
> 
> 
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:

snip

> > 
> > A few  Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there
> >  should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among  
them,
> > though she's working as a contractor until the end of February).  From what 
I
> > can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean  that overly
> > harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that  she has a
> > responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of  sidesteps the
> > issue of her in particular discussing  MediaWiki....)
> > 
> > It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's  positions are "wrong," that's a 
bad
> > and unfair characterization. But  Wikimedia has a tendency, as an
> > organization, to not be as transparent  as it sometimes likes to think it 
is.
> > Looking at the long view, more and  more decisions _are_ being made 
privately
> > among Wikimedia staff rather  than with community consultation (or even
> > notification). That's the  reality, but to blame this shift (and the
> > resulting skepticism from the  community) on foundation-l is a red herring.
> > 
> > MZMcBride
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing  list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> I'm not  referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; 
>there have  been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones 
>where staff  subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm 
>going to  disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF 
>employees and  contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" 
>public list we  have.)
> 
> You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's  not the issue 
>here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to  become 
>commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters)  
>fault.
> 
 
I don't know that could agree that *it is stating to become commonplace*    It 
has always been this way.  Back when volunteers made the sorts of decisions (or 
by default failed to make the decisions) that staff now make; they were heavily 
criticized (much more than I felt warranted given the comparative lack of 
resources). Let's ask Anthere how supportive she remembers foundation-l being 
during the "working board" days. The very first staffers dealt with this as well 
and it simply continues on today.  Historically heavy criticism has even made by 
people who now happen to be employed as staff (I am thinking of you Erik :) )   
Certainly the former mailing list dissidents that are now employed by the WMF 
should be explain to the rest of the staff and prospective staff what to expect 
from mailing list dissidents.  Erik could honestly put together quite the 
portfolio for such a course.  Of course *most* of the staff shouldn't have to 
deal with this sort of thing at all, MZMcBride makes a good separation of 
expectations regarding different kinds of staff.  Those who are hired to deal 
with community issues, however, will have to learn how to deal with community 
issues in the framework of how the community exists and has historically 
operated, not how to the deal with communities when the communities finally 
learn to stop operating in the manner they have always operated in.

Comments like earlier ones that "staff may just stopping posting on foundation-l 
if you guys aren't nicer" miss the point.  That would be WMF's loss much more 
than foundation-l's.  WMF will be able to do much more that it *wants to do* if 
it can successfully engage with the communities.  The communities will be able 
to do a large majority of what they want to do with or without WMF.  WMF only 
makes the communities more efficient not inherently viable.  The reverse is not 
true.

Birgitte SB