I think it’s important to realise that there *is* a big issue here. How we want to be
perceived and how we are actually perceived are *not* the same.
We can argue about WMF vs. community as much as we want, but that won’t change reality.
Please can we focus on how we solve the problem instead of internal bickering? (This
applies equally to the community and the brand project.)
Thanks,
Mike
On 15 Apr 2020, at 20:05, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. As Deskana has pointed out in the past, painting everyone at WMF
with the same brush is problematic. It can demoralize people who do
good work.
At the same time, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that the
same problems occur at WMF year after year. As the saying goes, "The
more things change, the more they stay the same." I think that the WMF
Board is a part of the problem. In the meantime, the best that the
rest of us can do is to continue to make our opinions known and try to
be productive.
I'm reluctant to call for changes of individually identifiable staff
without knowing more about the facts of this situation. I simply don't
have enough information.
I'm not aware of any large organization which doesn't have recurring
problems. WMF is not unique in this regard. That's not an excuse, but
I think that it's also important to be realistic.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>