Heh (: I have no problem with those emails being published.
Just for clarification: I do believe that there is value in some confidential and 1-on-1 communications. Where I think there is room for change is with regards to a governing body of an open-source organization (in this case, the WMF board) limiting access to so many of its official deliberations. I would strongly prefer that official deliberations of a governing body be open to the public. I feel that public deliberations provide important benefits: more credibility, reduction of the risks of groupthink, encouragement of civility in meetings, and increased accountability to the public.
I'm happy to provide further details on Washington State laws on open meetings and public records. Generally I feel that they provide good guidance. There are exceptions, for example in the cases of attorney-client privileged information, personnel matters, or deliberations about pending property acquisitions. I feel that the reasons for the exceptions are generally well designed, and it's important that closed-door official meetings are the exception rather than the norm.
Pine
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
Transparently, I suppose?
Thyge
2016-01-06 19:31 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the subjects of turnover and WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this.
Pine
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin@halonetwork.net
wrote:
While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary
of
reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees
that
are content rarely take the time to report this, so you end up with a skewed sample consisting largely of the unhappy and demotivated.
Looking a bit further into Glassdoor disproves that theory.
For comparison, here are two non-profits of roughly similar size for comparison:
- NPR has an approval rating of 4.0 out of 5, based on 96 reviews, with
79%
saying they would recommend working there to a friend.[1]
- The American Enterprise Institute has an approval rating of 4.1 out
of
5,
based on 53 reviews, with 89% saying they would recommend working there
to
a friend.[2]
You can find approval ratings in excess of 90% on Glassdoor for some
large
corporates, based on literally thousands of reviews.
[1]
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-NPR-EI_IE3965.11,14.htm
[2]
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Overview/Working-at-AEI-EI_IE151782.11,14.htm
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
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