I woke up this morning, read emails and felt quite frustrated. I wanted to write something on Delphine's line, but that Ark B distracted me enough to make myself content with one more satirical allegory.
So, thank you very much, Delphine, for writing this and opening much more important discussion! Much more than the Knight grant is or even the issues of Lila, James and Arnnon.
For the last 8 years, just two things have been working without problems in WMF: Money and tech infrastructure (servers, "plain" MediaWiki, optimizations etc.). Everything else is in the range between "regular problem we use to deal with" and quite serious problem.
Unlike Delphine and the most people from chapters, I want to see our movement as federation, not as confederation. I don't think we are ready to have loosely connected network of chapters and user groups. And that's not because of us as Wikimedians but because of us as humans. It's not reasonable to expect functional decentralized global movement without more common values than just those based on licenses. (No, we don't have any other.)
However, it doesn't work if there is no hard democratic influence over the decision-making process. And everything I heard about increasing community participation in decision-making processes for the last ~10 years was demagogy and doublespeak.
And, unlike dominant echoing here, I want to say that significant portion of staff is at least the passive part of that problem. (Keep in mind that Wikimedia staff are usually not just ordinary employees, but people with high level of political influence inside of the movement.) My memory says that I've seen staff talking openly about any problem just in the most visible and problematic cases. If not, of course, it was on the line of the Board and ED.
Have you noticed that this is almost exclusively the problem between significant portion of staff and highly involved American Wikimedians on one side and ED and Board on the other one? Community and chapters mostly don't care. Except, of course, that something very wrong is going on.
That's the product of previous (non-)actions, cultivation of particular interests, lack of solidarity, lack of articulating common values and building common culture; the product of "implementing goals" no matter of their long term price and total failure of the Board structure.
We are in constant crisis and I find a bit cynical the fact that one of the most influential groups inside of the movement is detecting it just when their dream jobs are on stake. Sorry for being harsh, but that's the fact.
To overcome this fully dysfunctional situation, we need to create the deal between the major stakeholders of the movement: Community, Board, chapters and staff (including ED). We have to define what are the expectations of every group and how to make those expectations fulfilled in the way that everybody see the value in participating into the movement if not to see everybody content.
This is something that had to be done a decade ago, but it's better to be done sooner than later and ever than never. We can't function with implicit expectations forever.
For example, If staff expects to be able to veto ED or to participate in selecting her or him -- which I find to be a reasonable expectation, having in mind the nature of our movement -- it should be articulated and, if no other stakeholder have anything strictly against it, we should find the way how to implement that.
But that's just about this ongoing issue. The list of expectations from various sides is long and we should talk about them one by one.
The process of reaching the common grounds is not easy, not shiny, requires a lot of work and nerves. Saying to each other "yes" or "thank you" is not helping, neither. We need to work hard on that. Useful Strategic Plan for the Board and management is not that, as well. We need reach the deal, not to achieve one more goal.
The most important obstacle is prevalent conformism, which destroys any collective ability to talk about anything "too hard", unless you are not pissed off by something.
Without our collective willingness to tackle hard and complex problems, I see business as usual, which means that Board will keep reacting just with crisis PR, without too much need to address the real issues and problems. Wikipedia will exist, chapters and others will be doing their projects.
The only large victim of that approach would be the movement itself. But, it would be the movement itself who made the suicide.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of admitting failure.
I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's governance chaos.
Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, I'm pretty sure that
Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody represents anyone, they're only "selected"...
Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who takes the blows).
Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole?
Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of direction.
So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address.
Cheers,
Delphine
PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots.
PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in positions where I should have worked harder at changing things.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading here, too! ;)
No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities, which is to happen this Spring.
That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation tool.
This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off. The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe