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

[James Alexander]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop
responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion
and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where
goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This
is definitely not  just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it like
that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue (we're good at
that). It is also something that I think has roots in all of the active
aspects of the community (I at the very least see everyone,
staff/contributer/reader/donor etc as part of that community) . There is no
doubt that there are many things that the foundation, the local arbcoms, the
stewards etc could do far better (though while I'm biased I do think there
has been improvement on that).

So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, regardless
of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown out
the window. This thread is about when it happens to staff but the same exact
thing happens to other community members speak up. We see it with Arbcom
members or Stewards, Article writers and anti-vandal fighters. So many
people who love the community and truly want what is best for it are met
only with skepticism, the assumption of bad faith and the decision that they
only way to question is to do so harshly and without mercy. Is that really
what we our community wants or needs?

While the words that are used espouse the rightful desire (that I think
every one of us wants) for transparency, discussion and community input (and
decisions) throughout the foundation and the projects I worry that the
result we are getting from this style of attack is exactly the opposite. We
are breeding a culture where maybe the staff member doesn't stop posting
here (or the Arbcom member stop posting decisions or the stewards enforcing
them) but where everyone is forced to sit and think and plan the best way to
break the news writing and rewriting announcements to try and "spin" it how
the rest of the community will want to hear it (or worse
how particular people they know will be vocal want to hear it). In the end
they still post but they do so with far less transparency, far less
discussion and take far longer .

I've always found that one of the best ways for me to work is to throw my
ideas in to the mix and debate it out with everyone. I end up with a better
understanding of what all the variables and issues are and in the end I feel
we come up with a better conclusion. The other side, asking everyone to come
up with their own idea means they come back in the end having 'decided' on
the best course of action. Getting them to deviate from that action is far
harder now because they've hashed it all out on their own, they're much more
sure and in the end I don't think we get the best conclusion because we
don't get to mesh everyone's nearly as well.

Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is
perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for them
to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those arguments.
I think we come out all the better for it. But to do that we have to be able
to do it in a collegial (sp?) way. I know I want that in a
work environment and whether I'm getting paid or not I certainly see the
projects as a work environment for us all.

James

-- 
James Alexander
jamesofur at gmail.com