On 19 Feb 2016 23:49, "Denny Vrandecic" wrote
# The alternative is to allow every member of the
Board to engage
individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But
this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement
must not be taken as
golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members
engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but
even if it's five), do
expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that
everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the
end, is the only way
the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and
she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. -
never mind possible legal
implications.
Hi Denny (and the rest of the Board),
From my experience of Wikimedia movement conversations
(and other
conversations from similar organisations) it is usually better to have
Board members contributing to debates with their own voices. It's really
reassuring to know that someone is saying something. Silence, by contrast,
results in a lot of doubts. Thinking back to the Haifa letter and the
discussion around fundraising and so on in 2011-2 - it was really helpful
in that discussion when WMF board members started sharing their
(conflicting) views rather than communicating through agreed statements (
which took hours to write and then ended up being really unclear anyway ).
It meant that the Board started to look like a bunch of people trying to do
the best job given conflicting perspectives, and stopped looking like an
uncontrollable monolith.
Of course it doesn't help that there are some people on this list who will
leap at every statement to find fault with it - but usually those people
are fed more by silence than by engagement.
And of course it is not always possible to talk publically about
differences of approach or upcoming issues - particularly where staff are
concerned - but it is best to talk as far as you can, in my view.
Chris
Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
press send before I just delete it.
This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not
trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away
from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying
to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.
Again, thanks,
Denny
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>