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

[MZMcBride]

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
> 
> This +1.  I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of
> weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions on
> this list -- in some cases not even their own actions.  Obviously, we should
> be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that
> end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to
> default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of
> employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore.

Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already,
though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia
employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required
to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in
general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so
Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing
more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that
people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and
the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make.

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