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

[Ray Saintonge]

On 02/16/11 9:14 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> 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?

It's not just the experienced classes that get harshly criticized. The 
stunned newbies have no idea what's happening to them.


> 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 .

The more you try to spin the more you sound like government.

> 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.

Assuming good faith includes respecting the other guy's right to be in 
error.  The most innovative ideas can appear very foolish when first 
presented.

Assuming good faith also involves looking at an idea on its own merits. 
That you may have been involved in a gang-up on the speaker two years 
ago doesn't matter.

> 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.

Sure. An important Wikipedia maxim is to leave something for others to 
do.  This doesn't mean that we willfully omit material, but that we 
acknowledge that our personal resources are limited, and others may be 
more suited to filling in the blanks.

Ec

PS: "Collegial" is spelled correctly, but earlier in the comments 
"tenants" should really be "tenets". :-)