On 13 Sep 2019, at 06:03, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Peel wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and validate that predetermined decision.
Mike (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)
I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?
We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.
We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".
Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.
So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here. Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects? Absolutely. This isn't it.
My “engage in conversation” comment was pointed in both directions - hopefully Wikimedians at the WMF will also comment on this thread? On Zack’s title, he describes his role as "I work to raise awareness and usage of Wikimedia projects around the world, expanding the global reach of free knowledge.” (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZMcCune_(WMF) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ZMcCune_(WMF) ).
Thanks, Mike