To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like understanding problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones in simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Anna
Thank you for that. In general an engagement works well when both, or all, parties have something to bring to the table and something to gain from the engagement (and certain other factors are in .
Thank you for the principle to begin. That helps me orient. Of course it's obvious when you say it, but I hadn't thought about it in that light. Simple.
So for example, in the field of software planning one might expect that an engagement between members of the community with an interest in and experience of software issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management developing the software roadmap would be effective.
I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I do. Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what to build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is decided upon they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
I do hope the WMF decides to try that some time.
How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s not a challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing is not like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not achieved *the scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll wait to hear what you actually mean before launching into my POV.
In this instance, there seems little that members of the community can do to help the WMF management handle a team problem that is taking place entirely within the WMF as an organisation. It may well be that there are people in the community with experience in managing software teams, but it seems unlikely that they will be in a position to give you the help you need on the time scales that you need it.
Yes, I agree that it’s not a productive role for members of community. I engaged for slightly different reasons. I know recently we all lived through some struggles with transparency. They were tough times for all of us. I engaged because this "pause in the work" could potentially strike a deeper cord around transparency.
Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know that we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all fought for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
Perhaps at some later date the senior leadership will want to do a lessons learned exercise and it might be that certain community members could help, but I would not use up the valuable bandwidth of staff and volunteers giving a blo-by-blow account of this particular incident.
Yes, I have some thoughts on directions I might like to go in relative to my own work. I’ll frame a page on Meta some time *roughly* within the next month and send you the link when it’s up. I need a place to think and interact and hear ideas.
In the middle ground, there is the issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the plan that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left hanging by these events.
I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous times.
I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one? What would it allow you to do? For example, is a roadmap a transparent publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other end?
And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having the ability to do those things versus solving potentially other important problems.
"Rogol"
and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking or even challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Rogol,
Good to hear from you.
"I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides."
Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically in
this
instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
"But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
the
Community."
Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should always be learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your statement.
/a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is
what,
if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need
to
carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be delivered
on
schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is attributed by Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I have advocated for involving the Community in the planing more, earlier and
at a
higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable to the Foundation's reluctance to do that.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess the question is was this a request for input on what the
community
thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery team?
Or
was it simply a "for your information", we have decided to do X, Y,
and
Z.
The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears the
second
was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give you
our
opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
expressing
- my support for the work that the Interactive Team was carrying
out.
my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to the
WM
movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
People
who
both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are few
and
far
between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he will
continue
on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to put
food
on
the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the Wikimedia movement will pick him up.
Best James
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Anna,
I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can confirm I
did
understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my summary
was
inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
interpreting
differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the details;
their
recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
I can't give a solid estimate of the "half-life," but I do not
think
the
enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in my initial
message
on
this
thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a "pause" that
necessitates
addressing uncertainty when discussing popular features can have
a
significant impact, and therefore should be minimized to whatever
degree
is
attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my belief.
Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses.
Sad!).
As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just not sure what
to
make
of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure I've heard Pine,
James,
DJ,
or
anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody with
standing
to
grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes sense. It's
worthwhile
to
know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more on a
scale
that
sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's something specific
being
asked
of
me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what it is.
I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give
them
the
time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a
discussion
about authority. I was just asking if those who commented, who all
seemed
to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team get back
to
them
with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully and
legally
provide, but more likely they would talk about the future work.
In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys think
it
is
reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like I've
not
made
this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the end of Q3, if
you'd
like.
Thanks. I'll reach out.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
peteforsyth@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > Anna, >> >> Pete, > > Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I
think
I
>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and
if
full
>> preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may
not
be
>> readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about
right?
>> > > I appreciate that you are trying to understand what I mean.
Thanks.
> > No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said, “This > communication thing is hard, especially when people are
involved.
> Sometimes > there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we don’t
know
whether
> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the facts.
The
truth
> is > that there can be a whole host of reasons for partial
communication
that
> aren’t related to competence or the intent to deceive.” > > As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of assumptions are
being
> made. > As for thorough answers, some might already be known and others
known
once
> more planning is completed. However, it could be that the
explanations
you
> want are not legal to share. There are many issues where
employment
law
> and > worker protections are crystal clear, as they should be. > > As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems like extra to
me.
I
> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s my personal
choice.
> > The team asked for some time. I wondered if that would be a
reasonable
> request to grant them. > > If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I think the point
is
in
> >> tension with >> another one: >> >> Community and public enthusiasm for software can be a rare and
important
>> thing. The conditions that make it grow, shrink, or sustain are
complex,
>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of mailing list >> participants. >> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have generated
enthusiasm
in a
>> number of venues, and many on this list (both volunteers and
staff)
would
>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps throw a little
weight
behind
>> an >> effort to make it grow or sustain. >> >> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of these recent outputs
generate
> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite excited about ORES > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
Evaluation_Service>
> and > > what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List, Labs, and New
Readers.
> But I also get that you want to be clear: you'd like to see the > interactive > team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense. > > The only thing I heard is that the team said that they needed to
pause,
> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The team's aim
during
this
> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable state.” > > But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is possible today may
not
be
>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may have
evolved
or
moved
>> on by then. >> >> I'm not in disagreement with your main point about enthusiasm
for
> software. > I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a half life of a
week,
> however, sounds more like a passing crush. Nevertheless, your
point
still
> stands. > > -Pete >> -- >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> /a > [[User:Annaproject]] > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org
>> > >> wrote: >> >> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you. >>> >>> "An employee should not experience their time off as a period
where
his
>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily buffered until his
[her/they]
>>> return, but where colleagues will step in and take care of
business."
>>> >>> I take this point seriously and don't wish you to think
otherwise.
In
>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice, sometimes we all face >>> >> constraints. >> >>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of magnitude). Every now
and
then,
>>> >> there >> >>> are not enough of us to go around on everything on a timeline
that
meets
>>> the legitimate need that you present here. We'll continue to
work
on
>>> >> this. >> >>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a "useful practice"
nor
did
>>> >> anyone >> >>> suggest that it was generalized across the org. >>> >>> What I was wondering about in my previous email and now
reiterating
in
>>> >> this >> >>> one too, are people willing to grant their request: a bit of
time
and
>>> >> allow >> >>> for one person to return to work? >>> >>> Does that seem like a way to move forward? >>> >>> Warmly, >>> /a >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim Landscheidt < >>> tim@tim-landscheidt.de >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: >>>> >>>> […] >>>>> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is
temporary.
I’ve
>>>>> >>>> heard >>>> >>>>> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request,
but
no
one
>>>>> >>>> is >>> >>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person
with
the
>>>>> >>>> most >>>> >>>>> information is on vacation. As someone who has seen
employees
go
>>>>> >>>> through >>> >>>> considerable stress in the last years, the entire executive
team
is
>>>>> >>>> working >>>> >>>>> to establish some cultural standards around supporting
vacations.
We
>>>>> >>>> want >>> >>>> people here to feel comfortable taking proper vacations and
sometimes
>>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People often plan their >>>>> >>>> vacations >> >>> well >>>> >>>>> in advance and may not know that something tricky will come
up.
Just
>>>>> >>>> so >> >>> you >>>> >>>>> understand one bias I bring to this conversation. >>>>> […] >>>>> >>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this is not a use- >>>> ful practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves employ- >>>> ees' stress. It conveys the organizational expectation that >>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An employee should >>>> not experience their time off as a period where his work >>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but >>>> where colleagues will step in and take care of business. >>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team >>>> should not depend on the inner thoughts of one employee, but >>>> be backed and explainable by others. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> 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>
>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in
it." -
>>> Margaret >>> Fuller >>> >>> Anna Stillwell >>> Director of Culture >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> 415.806.1536 >>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> 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:
>> 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/wik
i/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>
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." - Margaret Fuller
Anna Stillwell Director of Culture Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.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
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