Thanks Asaf for this thoughtful email!
I just want to respond to this bit - after all, the history is the history:
It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here. And it is within WMF's power to change it. C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and diverse context. They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like to see.
I agree it would be great to see more active discussion on this list including the WMF Board and senior staff. While it's not a perfect forum, it's currently one of the better forums we have. Who knows, perhaps at some point there will be other fora or other methods of putting things on 'the WMF's' agenda. [Obligatory Movement Strategy reminder: Who knows, perhaps the WMF is going to take a very different form in 3 years' time!]
But in the meantime I would like to think about what we can all ('WMF' and 'non-WMF') do to encourage this kind of culture change at the WMF.
Thinking about what this list looks like from inside the WMF (a place I have never been, literally or figuratively), I imagine people find the following reasons to hesitate before participating: * The list covers a broad range of topics, some of which are very high-level in nature and it's not clear who, if anyone, *should* respond. I expect some people are worried about interfering with other peoples' responsibilities, or that someone else always has a better understanding? How can we make people feel empowered to respond to these broad issues? * Emailing lists is timeconsuming and engaging with further replies that are angry/dissatisfied/demanding more details is even more demanding of time and emotion than that. I imagine people are concerned that starting a dialogue can end up as a huge time sink and emotional drain. How can we make sure this is a 'safe space' for staff to contribute without certain people picking up pitchforks? How can we make it clear that contributions are valued? * This list is not reflective of the breadth of the movement. If a staff member wants to engage with community members they may wonder whether this is this the right place to do so. How can we address that, even if only in part?
These problems are probably easier to overcome than they look or feel. But how can we, collectively, overcome them?
(It's also worth noting that these problems will apply to almost every other potential channel of community engagement, so if it's possible to make progress on having productive dialogue on this list, there may be learning points that we can apply to other fora....)
What do people think?
Chris