+1 to what Oliver and Vibber said.
The situation is still delicate, Jimmy.
Staff are being extremely kind to one another. I was blown away by the respect and care that staff showed toward *the entire situation yesterday *when we met as a group*.* We were mature, measured, civil, reasonable and supporting and trusting of one another. Last but not least, we were forward thinking.
Still, we've all been through something quite significant and we need a lot of care and feeding. This isn't to say that we can't have contentious discourse (I, for one, love to battle it out on ideas), but I think we would all really appreciate it if you step lightly. It's been really intense and I am no delicate flower.
Further, although there are a variety of temperaments and responses to what happened, there is very little disagreement that the right decision was finally made. Actually, I have yet to find any disagreement--only deep relief. I have not spoken to everyone, but I have connected with and listened to a lot of people. So the idea that there are (or were) just a small group of consistent complainers, is not what I have seen and I have been on the ground the entire time. In fact, I saw the opposite. I saw people go out of their way, extend AGF beyond any reasonable application, and then arrive at a similar, if not identical, conclusion.
There appears to have been a story that has succeeded (and been actively perpetuated) in some circles for some time. It's a story that paints staff as change averse luddites. It may have been told in a slightly more friendly manner in public, but that is the thesis if you dig into it. It was top notch spin, but it's not true.
The really powerful and disarming story about what's actually going on inside? We are a thriving group of capable and principled people coming together to do right by a mission and community that we are genuinely devoted to. And that is the only part of what's recently happened that feels really, really good.
I believe that staff have proven themselves to be legitimate stakeholders in this movement. We are worthy of your respect. We are worthy of the movement's respect.
Warmly, /a
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Feb 26, 2016 3:30 PM, "Oliver Keyes" ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
When I hear language about "ignoring those who are going to complain no matter what" and, in an email premised on visiting and spending time with staff, a distinction between the pool of people you'll be talking to and the "serious people", with an implication that only the concerns of the "serious people" will be taken, well, seriously, that worries me. It feels a lot like what we're coming out of. It feels like it will be a hindrance to progressing beyond this awful situation.
I appreciate this is almost certainly not what you were trying to communicate - indeed , I fully expect you'll come back confirming that it wasn't. But it's best to be aware of the language you chose to use, within the context of what staff have been going through since 2015. I of all people know that how you choose to contextualise a situation with your words has profound implications for how people approach you and the treatment you receive. It's best to avoid unintentional ambiguities or implications. When you use language that implies some people or their concerns are worth ignoring, it's going to resonate very strongly with the dividing tactics recently found at the Foundation: where some people found their worries and issues - which were totally legitimate - dismissed.
Seconded all this from Oliver.
To Jimmy: we've been doing Wikipedia and Wikimedia a long time, you and I. :) And in that time we've both learned good and bad habits.
One of those bad habits is known as "setting the bozo bit" in old school geek culture: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit
Tuning out the concerns of people because they often disagree makes our own lives easier on the short term, but at best it's a risk that you'll lose useful feedback, and at worst you can alienate people who could have become allies on some other topic... Or helped you avoid a sticky situation they saw coming that you didn't.
It's something I've tried very hard to get away from when I interact with other developers and users. And sometimes it's really hard. But a lot of the people I unset the bit from are now doing amazing things... Some of them now work for you as WMF developers and managers, and I'm glad I didn't mistreat them early on.
When it comes to your employees, setting the bozo bit is a *really* bad antipattern. Doubly so when they're coming out of a bad situation and have a lot to tell you.
This is the time to listen honestly even (especially?) to those whose narratives mismatch your own.
I'm pretty sure that's not something you'll disagree with, but it's one of those things that we easily find ourselves doing wrong, and have to watch out for.
Your staff is still raw and suspicious all around; the word "trauma" gets used with total sincerity. We'd really appreciate care in how you describe what's happening; it'll go a long way to making the next few days and the further discussions you're planning to make really useful.
-- brion
(As an aside from all of that, I entirely support Asaf's point about group meetings, with note-taking. I think it's good to have a record we can check what Everyone Knows against. Avoids FUD,[2] and at this critical time, increases transparency.)
[0]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_%28WMF%2...
[1] No, I was not one of them) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
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 _______________________________________________ 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