Blind, impotent rage isn't helpful, neither are conjectures about the abstract and nebulous nature of "something".
Let's try and remember, this is the same pattern as every other last time, most people commenting here are in agreement, this was wrong or at the least, this was handled poorly, and as usual, there is little to no official communication from the other side. The pitchforks are ready, the mob is assembled but the castle is empty, as usual.
I'm not sure why we keep perpetuating this us vs them mentality. Whether its the action of singular staff member or the board or large decision by the executive, the end result is always the same and I'm not sure we are making any progress over the years. Just pushing this boulder up the hill to watch it roll down every few months.
It is irrelevant what the disagreement was over with James. It is healthy for consensus building, and if james' views or actions were so radical that it required his immediate removal from the board - maybe that's what the board needed in it entrenched ways, isolated from what is relevant. I am not sure what the board is trying to maintain in their silence - beyond this expectation to be professional and secretive and respect some sort of group cohesion or collective authority - the legal department isn't helping the situation either, peppering it with NDAs and gag order/requests.
The prepared and semi-prepared statements from the two board members aren't really assuring or remotely revealing of anything. So I guess, we are left to conjectures and conspiracies, extrapolating theories from morsels of information. This has been a sad effort from the board and the communication need for all parties involved.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
No more Sue, no more Erik, no more many, many others. With the exception of Geoff, we have a full turnover of the leadership/executive/whatever team of the Wikimedia Foundation. This, in addition to two vacancies for Chief Technology and Chief Financial Officers, along with a recent-ish massive re-organization of the engineering team that ruffled feathers.
I think you are missing some of the context to support your narrative. Sue's departure was the precondition for Lila's arrival and the new leadership. Erik also, would be seen as an extension of the same executive body that had to be refactored. You mention Geoff, but he was brought on to replace someone else in that position(Mike), by Sue. I count several of the same individuals still around - off the top of my head, Asaf, Siko, James, Megan, Brion, Tomasz, and many more are still around. A large majority of the WMF staff just never interacted with the community, and there were always new staff members around, so it really doesn't feel all that different. I would also argue the average employment length for a wfm employee under Sue wasn't any better. There were a lot of staff changes that happened quietly and frequently. There was also a clique that formed that moved around titles - I see less of that now. The open positions on staff aren't really evidence of anything in particular beyond a suitable hire hasn't been located, given how important those two positions are I would rather they err on the side of caution.
I assume bringing in a new executive and new leadership for an organisation means change. In fact, I'd be more surprised if there weren't these changes and Lila was working with the same people doing the exact same things as Sue. Change in this case is evident, whether that change is for good or not - remains to be seen - something we agree on.
I like to remind people that Sue's start as Executive Director wasn't exactly drama-free, but at no point in her tenure can I remember anyone, inside or outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, suggesting holding a vote of no confidence for her. The same hasn't been true of Lila, unfortunately.
I would disagree, and I would also point out that there isn't a no confidence vote for Lila now either. This is strictly about the board and its conduct, this might be among the first few times the focus is shifting to Lila without even her mention by any of the parties involved. For historical accuracy, I would point you to the 2012 fundraising debate, the superprotect debacle, and a lot of contentious discussion over the years that questioned Sue's leadership on a regular basis.
It's possible that the secrecy is hiding all of the work taking place in
the background, with people diligently studying the past five years, associated goals, and figuring out what went wrong and what went right. But the suspicion I have, as a somewhat-informed observer, is that the high-level vision for what comes next for the Wikimedia Foundation is missing. And that's what driving the low morale and high discomfort.
As another somewhat-informed observer, I would assure you that a high-level vision for what comes next for WMF was ALWAYS missing. Just see the original strategic plan from boots on the ground in the "global south" to payment processing/chapter fundraising debate moving to narrowing focus to myriads of development efforts that were just abandoned and never replaced with a cohesive strategy. For example, there was a global dev. dept. at some point, it was gutted a long time ago but everyone involved was refactored in other positions - one would argue there might be little to no skill or experience overlap between overseeing a "boots on the ground" strategy in MENA region(Or Brazil and India) to handling grants from SF, and same could be said for a lot of other departments and position shuffling over the years, but I digress.
One can also argue, the high level vision could in part come from the board. They certainly might have had a vision in mind when they replaced Sue. But I highly doubt there ever was, and this is the flat circle perpetuating itself - who is leading whom?
Perhaps ironically, this tumult and anxiety comes at a time when there's so much to be excited about in the tech space. We have all kinds of new tools: arbitrary Wikidata access, graphing/visualization libraries, more powerful transclusion, Scribunto/Lua modules, VisualEditor, etc., along with steady performance and operations improvements that have made the sites faster and securer to load and more enjoyable to use. There are reasons to be hopeful about the next few years, but also reasons to be concerned. It's unclear what the precise ratio is currently.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't put at least some of that as a win for Lila?
That is not to say Lila has my vote of confidence on all issues, I have my disappointments too. But I have a simple measure that I follow, I check Lila's talk page (Last edited by her on 2 Jan) to see how the conversation is going there. It sounds stupid, but really I've seen more board members and executives lose sight of what is relevant when they shut the world around them and stop communicating on wiki. She is listening to the raw feedback, even when it is constantly negative. There is no alternative to unadulterated feedback - the board needs a good dose of that.
Regards Theo