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

[Daniel Phelps]

On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:00 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> 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.
> 
> snip--
> ..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. 
> --snip
> MZMcBride

Thanks MZ.  As a point of clarification I work with the on-boarding of most, if not all staff, and they are all highly encouraged to join this list and others (announce, internal...) and are given an overview of the various lists and wikis - specifically if they will be in a position that has them working directly with the community.  Most positions are in some way community facing, and others, like my own aren't necessarily by definition but overlap enough that it's good practice for all to join.

That being said, there are a high volume of emails on this list and it is difficult keeping up with all replies and tangental conversations on top of the other lists and work I have.  I imagine others at WMF are in the same boat.

I do tend to see a lot of generalization and stereotyping on this list which makes me frown, and I also see a lot of language or phrasing that I don't consider civil.  I'd love it if this list were a tool for the community and WMF staff, fellows or contractors to interact and collaborate openly on but I agree with the sentiment that that is unlikely to happen when you are worried you will be attacked or criticized openly on a searchable public list.  That's key in a few ways, for the staff this is not only a passion (yes, we do screen all staff for alignment or interest in the mission along with several other aligned values of the projects ;) ) but it is also our livelihood and when things get overly critical or dig into personnel issues it's a very big deal.  Not all community members on this list identify with their real names so there is a slight shroud of anonymity especially when it comes to the outside world.  That's not so with staff.

There is also the tone piece, many interactions on this list simply wouldn't be phrased the way they are if they happened in person.  That leads people to be reactive, to be hesitant to respond or simply to unsubscribe.  When we are able to get passionate community members with us, either in visits to the office or at meet-ups or events we get much more productive interaction.  It doesn't mean we all agree and hold hands around a fire.  We get to prod the whys and hows and share different view points where and when they exist.  That's not always true in email on a public list, specifically this list.

I've wondered if we shouldn't all collaboratively create a rules of engagement covenant for this list that by joining or remaining a member of this list we agree to abide by.  Stuff like, I won't be a jerk - I agree to respect others though my opinion may differ - and I will assume good faith.  I would think we wouldn't have to call that last one out, it's really a mindset for the community as well as the staff but I find that of all that seems to be left out of communications on this list a majority of the time.

-Daniel