Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Pine W]

Related to this thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html

In particular: "Psychological safety is ‘‘a sense of confidence that the
team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up,’’
Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999. ‘‘It describes a team climate
characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are
comfortable being themselves.’’

and

"But Google’s data indicated that psychological safety, more than anything
else, was critical to making a team work."

Pine
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] last day to nominate for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees...

[James Heilman]

Nice :-)

J

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Sounds good, thank you Pharos and WMNYC!
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Pharos 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > Wikimedia NYC is interested in opening up and diversifying the Wikimedia
> > Foundation board nominations process (beyond the typical
> chapter-affiliated
> > candidates), so interested parties are welcomed to submit their
> > self-nominations today on Meta-Wiki, and we will consider all reasonable
> > applications from around the world, and will endorse those
> non-traditional
> > candidates whose inclusion we would find to benefit the overall elections
> > process.
> >
> > You just have to start the page for your nomination on Meta-Wiki today,
> > details can be filled in over the coming week.
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> >
> > Nominations must be in by UTC end of day March 8 on Meta-Wiki (which is
> the
> > global deadline), and Wikimedia NYC will formally make the choice of
> > candidates to endorse for participation in the elections at its March 16
> > 'WikiWednesday' public meeting, to be determined by an open vote of
> > attendees at that meeting.
> >
> > We also commit to having a vote at our public meeting in April or May to
> > make our chapter's decision for the actual elections.
> >
> > Feel free to write to us beforehand if you have questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pharos
> > Wikimedia NYC
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The board of trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation has 10 seats. The
> > office
> > > holders for 2 of these 10 seats will be selected in the "2016
> > > affiliate-selected board seats" process described at
> > > 
> > >
> > > For a candidate to be considered in this election, they must be
> nominated
> > > by 8 March and endorsed by a voting Wikimedia organizational affiliate
> by
> > > 23 March.
> > >
> > > If anyone has any nomination to make, we are now in the last day!
> > > Nominations must be made by the end of 8 March! Make a nomination for
> > > yourself or another person at
> > > <
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > > >
> > >
> > > For those making a nomination, please follow up by soliciting for
> > > endorsement of the nomination from one voting organization. That
> > > endorsement must be posted by 23 March. Candidates in the election must
> > be
> > > nominated by the end of March 8 and must have their endorsement by 23
> > > March.
> > >
> > > Beyond nomination, please participate in the election by encouraging
> all
> > > organizations which are eligible to vote to cast their vote later
> during
> > > the voting period.
> > >
> > > Thanks - and forgive me if I misspoke in any part of this. I am anxious
> > > about writing correctly and clearly. The official election
> documentation
> > is
> > > on-wiki.
> > >
> > > yours,
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lane Rasberry
> > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > 206.801.0814
> > > l...@bluerasberry.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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[James Heilman]

+1 to MZMcBride comment

I strongly support us actually elected the community trustees. I have
reached out to a couple of lawyers to try to figure out how involved this
would be.

James

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Patricio Lorente wrote:
> >Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of
> >the Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
> >immediately.
> >
> >This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
> >responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to
> >ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective
> >governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal
> >decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be
> >published shortly.
> >
> > [...]
>
> The minutes from this Board of Trustees meeting have now been posted:
>
> ---
> December 28, 2015 minutes
> WMF Board minutes
>
> * December 28, 2015
> * Board of Trustees present: Patricio Lorente (Chair), Alice Wiegand (Vice
>   Chair), Dariusz Jemielniak, Denny Vrandečić, Frieda Brioschi, James
>   Heilman Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, and Guy Kawasaki
> * Others present for part of the meeting: Geoff Brigham (Secretary and
>   General Counsel), Stephen LaPorte (Legal Counsel)
>
> Patricio called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM Pacific time on December
> 28, 2016. Geoff called roll and confirmed that a quorum was present and
> able to simultaneously hear the meeting.
>
> Patricio called the meeting for the purpose of discussing a resolution to
> remove James from the Board of Trustees. Patricio introduced the
> discussion, and asked James to discuss his perspective. At that point in
> the meeting, James was excused from the discussion and Board members
> discussed their concerns. Patricio invited James back to the meeting.
> After a motion by Patricio, seconded by Alice, the Board voted to approve
> a resolution to remove James from the Board
> ,
> effective immediately.
>
> The Board discussed the next steps, and the meeting was concluded.
> ---
>
> From .
>
> >This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. [...]
>
> Hmmm, I only just now noticed your use of community-selected here. I think
> sometime this year, we should hold a community straw poll on Meta-Wiki
> about changing the selection to an election. I think the Board of Trustees
> needs to hear from the Wikimedia editing community about this issue.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] last day to nominate for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees...

[Pine W]

Sounds good, thank you Pharos and WMNYC!

Pine

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Pharos  wrote:

> Hi fellow Wikimedians,
>
> Wikimedia NYC is interested in opening up and diversifying the Wikimedia
> Foundation board nominations process (beyond the typical chapter-affiliated
> candidates), so interested parties are welcomed to submit their
> self-nominations today on Meta-Wiki, and we will consider all reasonable
> applications from around the world, and will endorse those non-traditional
> candidates whose inclusion we would find to benefit the overall elections
> process.
>
> You just have to start the page for your nomination on Meta-Wiki today,
> details can be filled in over the coming week.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
>
> Nominations must be in by UTC end of day March 8 on Meta-Wiki (which is the
> global deadline), and Wikimedia NYC will formally make the choice of
> candidates to endorse for participation in the elections at its March 16
> 'WikiWednesday' public meeting, to be determined by an open vote of
> attendees at that meeting.
>
> We also commit to having a vote at our public meeting in April or May to
> make our chapter's decision for the actual elections.
>
> Feel free to write to us beforehand if you have questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
> Wikimedia NYC
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The board of trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation has 10 seats. The
> office
> > holders for 2 of these 10 seats will be selected in the "2016
> > affiliate-selected board seats" process described at
> > 
> >
> > For a candidate to be considered in this election, they must be nominated
> > by 8 March and endorsed by a voting Wikimedia organizational affiliate by
> > 23 March.
> >
> > If anyone has any nomination to make, we are now in the last day!
> > Nominations must be made by the end of 8 March! Make a nomination for
> > yourself or another person at
> > <
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
> > >
> >
> > For those making a nomination, please follow up by soliciting for
> > endorsement of the nomination from one voting organization. That
> > endorsement must be posted by 23 March. Candidates in the election must
> be
> > nominated by the end of March 8 and must have their endorsement by 23
> > March.
> >
> > Beyond nomination, please participate in the election by encouraging all
> > organizations which are eligible to vote to cast their vote later during
> > the voting period.
> >
> > Thanks - and forgive me if I misspoke in any part of this. I am anxious
> > about writing correctly and clearly. The official election documentation
> is
> > on-wiki.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lane Rasberry
> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > 206.801.0814
> > l...@bluerasberry.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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Oliver Keyes]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> > Employees have some rights too, including the right to organize and the
>> > right to quit. Good employees quitting may be a sign of problems with
>> > management.
>> >
>> > In WMF's case, many of the staff have plenty of employment options
>> outside
>> > of WMF, which is all the more reason to select a WMF ED who has good
>> people
>> > management skills in addition to a wide array of other skills.
>> >
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I'm highlighting this not to be
>> harsh but to correct a pretty serious misunderstanding with the nature
>> of the WMF's employee base, one which I think is partially responsible
>> for a lack of proper understanding of precisely how scary, stressful
>> and frankly amazing the dissent over the last 12 months has been.
>>
>> Take the number of WMF employees. Pretty much all of them are good,
>> smart, qualified people for the work they do, so clearly they could
>> get awesome jobs elsewhere, right?
>>
>> Now, split out all the non-engineers. Our programme and education and
>> grants teams are fantastic; so are our administrative teams. But their
>> prospects aren't as great as those for engineers simply for the reason
>> that there is literally an entire industry, one of the few ones with
>> continuous growth, built on the existence and recruitment of
>> engineers. It's a lot harder to get a new job if you're outside that
>> group.
>>
>
> Perhaps I'm more of an optimist when it comes to job prospects for
> non-engineers because I happen to live a short distance from
> the Gates Foundation and a few months ago I looked over their job
> postings. It seemed to me that quite a few people in WMF's Community
> department would be good fit at Gates. I also believe that the
> US Government, school districts, and UN agencies would be interested
> in some of the people who work in the WMF Community Department.
> I'm not saying that I *want* WMFers to leave, just saying that I'm
> more of an optimist that people from the Community team could
> indeed find jobs elsewhere that are aligned with their skill sets.
>

The US Government only employs citizens in civil service rules; a
great executive order that one was. And, yes, I suspect the proximity
of a single non-profit may be a bias.

>
>
>>
>> So now we've got engineers. Still a pretty big chunk of the
>> organisation. Cool! Now remove anyone on a H1B visa. See, if you're on
>> a H1B and you quit, you're instantaneously no longer in the country
>> legally. Ditto if you're fired. The only way around it is to convince
>> a second employer to hire you, and file to transfer the petition over,
>> while still _at_ the first employer. Otherwise, bzzt. You quit, you
>> were fired, either way, get out of our country please.
>>
>
> That is indeed a problem. While I suppose that my statement remains
> correct that H1B engineers can get jobs elsewhere, it's certainly
> a big downside if they're effectively deported before that happens
> when they'd rather stay in the US.

I'm glad we're in agreement that being deported from the United States
and potentially banned from returning depending on how it happens is
"a big downside".

>
>
>>
>> So that's US-citizen or resident engineers left. Let's scrap from that
>> people outside the default stereotype of engineers as 20-something
>> people without dependants. If you're someone who does have dependants
>> or responsibilities - children, a partner not working, elderly
>> relatives - well that makes finding a new job a lot harder. Not only
>> do you have less energy and time in which to do it, because you're
>> looking after these people, you have to find a job that's as flexible
>> on when you work your 40 hours as the WMF is, otherwise you risk
>> running into some serious collisions with your out-of-work duties. And
>> heaven forfend if you're *having* a kid or have serious medical
>> conditions because not only do you have to deal with that, any gap in
>> employment is potentially financially crippling since you're now
>> without medical insurance.
>>
>
> My understanding is that outside of the 24/7 work environment at
> startups, particularly in large and now-old tech companies like
> Microsoft and Google, work-life balance is an aspect that those
> companies try to support and to a degree they use it as a
> recruiting incentive.

You'd be shocked, actually. Google, for example, used to do a pretty
good job around childcare - then they decided it was too expensive and
so why bother?

Google and Microsoft are both sort of ground zero for the "keep em
penned" kind of benefits: a system where any service that can be
provided on-site, is, because that way you never have to leave. This
is very distinct from what I'm talking about, which is flexible time
up and including 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Pine W]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > Employees have some rights too, including the right to organize and the
> > right to quit. Good employees quitting may be a sign of problems with
> > management.
> >
> > In WMF's case, many of the staff have plenty of employment options
> outside
> > of WMF, which is all the more reason to select a WMF ED who has good
> people
> > management skills in addition to a wide array of other skills.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I'm highlighting this not to be
> harsh but to correct a pretty serious misunderstanding with the nature
> of the WMF's employee base, one which I think is partially responsible
> for a lack of proper understanding of precisely how scary, stressful
> and frankly amazing the dissent over the last 12 months has been.
>
> Take the number of WMF employees. Pretty much all of them are good,
> smart, qualified people for the work they do, so clearly they could
> get awesome jobs elsewhere, right?
>
> Now, split out all the non-engineers. Our programme and education and
> grants teams are fantastic; so are our administrative teams. But their
> prospects aren't as great as those for engineers simply for the reason
> that there is literally an entire industry, one of the few ones with
> continuous growth, built on the existence and recruitment of
> engineers. It's a lot harder to get a new job if you're outside that
> group.
>

Perhaps I'm more of an optimist when it comes to job prospects for
non-engineers because I happen to live a short distance from
the Gates Foundation and a few months ago I looked over their job
postings. It seemed to me that quite a few people in WMF's Community
department would be good fit at Gates. I also believe that the
US Government, school districts, and UN agencies would be interested
in some of the people who work in the WMF Community Department.
I'm not saying that I *want* WMFers to leave, just saying that I'm
more of an optimist that people from the Community team could
indeed find jobs elsewhere that are aligned with their skill sets.



>
> So now we've got engineers. Still a pretty big chunk of the
> organisation. Cool! Now remove anyone on a H1B visa. See, if you're on
> a H1B and you quit, you're instantaneously no longer in the country
> legally. Ditto if you're fired. The only way around it is to convince
> a second employer to hire you, and file to transfer the petition over,
> while still _at_ the first employer. Otherwise, bzzt. You quit, you
> were fired, either way, get out of our country please.
>

That is indeed a problem. While I suppose that my statement remains
correct that H1B engineers can get jobs elsewhere, it's certainly
a big downside if they're effectively deported before that happens
when they'd rather stay in the US.


>
> So that's US-citizen or resident engineers left. Let's scrap from that
> people outside the default stereotype of engineers as 20-something
> people without dependants. If you're someone who does have dependants
> or responsibilities - children, a partner not working, elderly
> relatives - well that makes finding a new job a lot harder. Not only
> do you have less energy and time in which to do it, because you're
> looking after these people, you have to find a job that's as flexible
> on when you work your 40 hours as the WMF is, otherwise you risk
> running into some serious collisions with your out-of-work duties. And
> heaven forfend if you're *having* a kid or have serious medical
> conditions because not only do you have to deal with that, any gap in
> employment is potentially financially crippling since you're now
> without medical insurance.
>

My understanding is that outside of the 24/7 work environment at
startups, particularly in large and now-old tech companies like
Microsoft and Google, work-life balance is an aspect that those
companies try to support and to a degree they use it as a
recruiting incentive.


>
> Okay! So: "many of the staff have plenty of employment options outside
> of WMF". And by that we mean: employees who are US citizens or
> residents, have no dependants or serious medical issues, and work in
> an engineering-centric role, have plenty of employment options outside
> of WMF. Which is, in practice, like: Mikhail. Mikhail has plenty of
> employment opportunities. Congrats to Mikhail.
>
> The rest of us? Various amounts of "seriously boned". I know staff who
> did not speak up because they were scared of losing medical coverage
> or, worse, being forced out of the country, if dissent was reacted to
> with firings. I know people who did speak up *despite* being subject
> to these risks. This perception that many staff have many viable and
> good options they can just jump to if stuff gets bad glosses over the
> fact that, actually, the vast majority don't. The fact they chose to
> do something even in those conditions is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[MZMcBride]

Patricio Lorente wrote:
>Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of
>the Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
>immediately.
>
>This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
>responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation to
>ensure that the Board functions with mutual confidence to ensure effective
>governance. Following serious consideration, the Board felt this removal
>decision was a necessary step at this time. The resolution will be
>published shortly.
>
> [...]

The minutes from this Board of Trustees meeting have now been posted:

---
December 28, 2015 minutes
WMF Board minutes

* December 28, 2015
* Board of Trustees present: Patricio Lorente (Chair), Alice Wiegand (Vice
  Chair), Dariusz Jemielniak, Denny Vrandečić, Frieda Brioschi, James
  Heilman Jan-Bart de Vreede, Jimmy Wales, Stu West, and Guy Kawasaki
* Others present for part of the meeting: Geoff Brigham (Secretary and
  General Counsel), Stephen LaPorte (Legal Counsel)

Patricio called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM Pacific time on December
28, 2016. Geoff called roll and confirmed that a quorum was present and
able to simultaneously hear the meeting.

Patricio called the meeting for the purpose of discussing a resolution to
remove James from the Board of Trustees. Patricio introduced the
discussion, and asked James to discuss his perspective. At that point in
the meeting, James was excused from the discussion and Board members
discussed their concerns. Patricio invited James back to the meeting.
After a motion by Patricio, seconded by Alice, the Board voted to approve
a resolution to remove James from the Board
,
effective immediately.

The Board discussed the next steps, and the meeting was concluded.
---

From .

>This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. [...]

Hmmm, I only just now noticed your use of community-selected here. I think
sometime this year, we should hold a community straw poll on Meta-Wiki
about changing the selection to an election. I think the Board of Trustees
needs to hear from the Wikimedia editing community about this issue.

MZMcBride



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Thanks Risker.  Maybe there is a mixing of levels here.

I am urging that we address things have become broken on a deep level,
namely the gap between what the board says and what James has said and the
destruction of trust caused by that gap.

If all Pierre was doing was saying that he disagreed with the November
decision, that has really nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss.
My sense was that he was responding on the level I was discussing and
saying that the decision itself was trust-destroying.  Perhaps I was wrong.
  That could well be.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than
> is really there.
>
> Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself
> trust-destroying for [him]".  He said it was a mistake, and he said it was
> a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover
> from a 90% staff disapproval level.
>
> He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the
> board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating
> doubts".  Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the
> support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a
> good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog  wrote:
>
> > Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that
> throwing
> > integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it
> is
> > absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have
> been
> > honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that,
> and
> > if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.
> Misrepresenting
> > things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge
> rifts
> > that remain gaping today.
> >
> > I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
> > trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
> > hear that.
> >
> > To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
> > calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that
> just
> > destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper
> wound.
> > This to me, bars the way to move forward.
> >
> > How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
> > effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
> > decisions?
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously ?
> > >
> > > If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and
> undermine
> > > the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
> > >
> > > The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED"
> straw
> > > poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more
> it
> > > costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
> > > there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
> > > (C-levels included).
> > > Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> > > > matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
> > > >
> > > > It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
> > > board
> > > > supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
> > did
> > > > support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose
> to
> > > > state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
> > > everything
> > > > to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the
> board
> > > > actually did.
> > > >
> > > > This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely
> > allowed
> > > > this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes
> and
> > > > swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would
> be
> > > so
> > > > foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> > > > individuals made in the context that existed.
> > > >
> > > > These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -
> > have
> > > > created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
> > This
> > > is
> > > > what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> > > > distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per
> se.
> > > >
> > > > Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
> > and
> > > > to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
> > bad
> > > > choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
> > go
> > > > forward.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
> > > cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than
is really there.

Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself
trust-destroying for [him]".  He said it was a mistake, and he said it was
a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover
from a 90% staff disapproval level.

He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the
board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating
doubts".  Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the
support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a
good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.

Risker/Anne

On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog  wrote:

> Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with.  You are saying that throwing
> integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK.  I am saying it is
> absolutely not OK.  The individuals representing the board should have been
> honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and
> if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.  Misrepresenting
> things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts
> that remain gaping today.
>
> I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself
> trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I
> hear that.
>
> To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether.  It
> calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just
> destroys the very basis for authentic conversation.  It is a deeper wound.
> This to me, bars the way to move forward.
>
> How do we trust what the board says going forward?  How can the board be
> effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its
> decisions?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> wrote:
>
> > Seriously ?
> >
> > If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine
> > the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
> >
> > The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw
> > poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it
> > costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
> > there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
> > (C-levels included).
> > Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :
> >
> > > Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> > > matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
> > >
> > > It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
> > board
> > > supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
> did
> > > support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> > > state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
> > everything
> > > to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> > > actually did.
> > >
> > > This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely
> allowed
> > > this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> > > swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be
> > so
> > > foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> > > individuals made in the context that existed.
> > >
> > > These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -
> have
> > > created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
> This
> > is
> > > what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> > > distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
> > >
> > > Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
> and
> > > to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
> bad
> > > choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
> go
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
> > cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> > > going
> > > > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern
> Lila,
> > > and
> > > > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> > > towards a
> > > > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be
> the
> > > > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> > > from
> > > > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into
> the
> > > > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether
> the
> > > > > "full confidence of the board" 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Jytdog,

My response was actually more to Oliver than you, but I still would draw a
distinction between "unanimous support" and "majority support".  It might
seem innocuous enough but as Pierre-Selim points out, "majority support" is
actually not a great reflection on an employee, as it presumably means that
some important people want to be rid of them.  Of course, without the
inconsistent messaging from the BoT drawing attention to this point, it
probably would not have become an issue.

I do concur with the general thrust of the rest of your message; that poor
recordkeeping and confusion in the way that the trustees have reacted to
this situation (and the Geshuri situation, and the Heilman situation, and
the search engine situation generally) has made things a lot worse than
they needed to be.

Cheers,
Craig



On 8 March 2016 at 04:16, jytdog  wrote:

> Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
>
> It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
> supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
> support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
> to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> actually did.
>
> This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
> this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
> foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> individuals made in the context that existed.
>
> These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
> created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
> what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
>
> Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
> to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
> choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
> forward.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> going
> > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
> and
> > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> towards a
> > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> from
> > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > > continuation was the best thing.
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pierre-Selim]

Seriously ?

If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine
the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.

The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw
poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it
costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly
there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff
(C-levels included).
Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog"  a écrit :

> Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
> matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.
>
> It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
> supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
> support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
> state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
> to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
> actually did.
>
> This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
> this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
> swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
> foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
> individuals made in the context that existed.
>
> These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
> created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
> what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
> distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
>
> Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
> to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
> choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
> forward.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
> going
> > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
> and
> > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
> towards a
> > particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
> from
> > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> > public domain about how they regarded her performance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> >
> > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > > continuation was the best thing.
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

Le lundi 7 mars 2016, 13:40:20 Brion Vibber a écrit :
> 
> Third, what happens when the "unicorn" retires and we transition again?
> 
> I think we're going to need to think harder about structural remedies:
> communications channels, reporting infrastructures, "escape valves" for
> miscommunications or squashed communications in the reporting chain, etc.

I agree. I think it's going to be critical for us to rebuild the organization 
in a way that is more resilient to the shortcomings of any single individual.

This reminds me of this quote: "As a leader, your goal should always be to 
build structures and processes that don't depend on you and ideally don't need 
you."

It's from an article I shared with Lila and Boryana in December due to the 
context then:

http://firstround.com/review/the-keys-to-scaling-yourself-as-a-technology-leader/

These were my thoughts on the topic back then:



I think a key point here is that the key to an efficient and resilient
organization is distributed processes and documentation. The article notably
mentions Conway's Law, whose application is unusual in the context of the WMF.

The law states that organizations model their products after their own 
structures and processes. Because the WMF was created /after/ its products, the 
opposite happened: the WMF modeled itself after the open, collaborative wiki 
model, and stayed that way for a while. During that initial period, there was 
little conflict between the WMF and our communities.

As the WMF grew and professionalized, we started drifting from that model. The
risk of alienating our values and identity (and as a consequence our
communities) was identified early on.

At Sue Gardner's request, the theme of the 2010 all-staff meeting was "How do
we grow our organization but stay who we are" (paraphrased). One of the all-
staff exercises was to "list the things we cherish"; One prominent item on this
list was "The Casey Browns of this world" (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_All-staff_meeting_2010_-_Things_we_cherish.jpg
 ), after the name of one of our most engaged volunteers
involved in many support functions for the WMF. I found this so insightful
that I took that picture :)

Despite that early caution, we /have/ more or less abandoned the wiki model
gradually (due to many different factors), and I see this reflected in the
results of the Engagement survey.

I feel that many of the issues the organization is facing right now (both
internally, and externally with our communities) are related to this conflict
between our original model and the one we've drifted towards.

My impression, based on my personal experience and 6 years of being at the
WMF, is that the most successful WMF initiatives have been those led by people
who followed the wiki model as closely as possible (regardless of whether they
were originally hired from the communities). I'm happy to discuss this further
and share my experience in this area, if you're interested.



-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Wikimedia Foundation

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Brion Vibber]

I do feel the need to warn against making a checklist of good qualities for
potential candidates...

First, a lot of these things are hard to interview for. If you ask someone
if they support their employees and give them clear goals, they're probably
going to say "yes". To find out if they consistently can/do in your sort of
work environment, you'd rather need to interview the people they've been
supporting & managing for a while and ask them how *they* feel.

Second, we're never going to find a "unicorn" who is all things to all
people. Real people are imperfect, and real situations are complex.

Third, what happens when the "unicorn" retires and we transition again?


I think we're going to need to think harder about structural remedies:
communications channels, reporting infrastructures, "escape valves" for
miscommunications or squashed communications in the reporting chain, etc.

In government we call these sorts of things "checks and balances", and we
want them in place both when we like the people being elected into office
and when we are deeply distrustful of them.


I don't advocate huge changes done quickly, but I strongly advocate making
some small steps in the short term; at a minimum, quickly establishing the
promised ombudsperson role to provide an alternate channel for reporting
problems in the regular reporting chain would go a long way to restoring
trust lost in November-February.

-- brion



On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Food for thought:
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-best-managers-exhibit-these-7-behaviors-2016-1
>
> Looking forward to further discussions in the weeks and months ahead,
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] last day to nominate for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees...

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

The board of trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation has 10 seats. The office
holders for 2 of these 10 seats will be selected in the "2016
affiliate-selected board seats" process described at


For a candidate to be considered in this election, they must be nominated
by 8 March and endorsed by a voting Wikimedia organizational affiliate by
23 March.

If anyone has any nomination to make, we are now in the last day!
Nominations must be made by the end of 8 March! Make a nomination for
yourself or another person at
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations
>

For those making a nomination, please follow up by soliciting for
endorsement of the nomination from one voting organization. That
endorsement must be posted by 23 March. Candidates in the election must be
nominated by the end of March 8 and must have their endorsement by 23 March.

Beyond nomination, please participate in the election by encouraging all
organizations which are eligible to vote to cast their vote later during
the voting period.

Thanks - and forgive me if I misspoke in any part of this. I am anxious
about writing correctly and clearly. The official election documentation is
on-wiki.

yours,


-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Nathan]

If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or
Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they
should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information
themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the
deafening silence from the board is justified by a non-disparagement
agreement or some other concern about personnel confidentiality.

If that's the case, and it seems unlikely those responsibilities would
prevent the release of any information at all, they could simply offer "We
understand people would like us to comment about issues X, Y and Z but we
can't for reasons A, B and C." Regardless, the board can speak on its own
behalf or not and spectators guessing on the motivations behind their
choices add no new information and certainly can't excuse the gap into
outer space that used to be filled by a person named Patricio.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Stephen Philbrick]

I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet
able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy.
However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the
board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not
unanimous support.

I don’t think this is hard to understand. While I do not know the exact
sequence, it has been stated that a straw poll was taken in which some
board members express support for Lila and some did not. A straw poll is a
straw poll for a reason — it is often used to determine whether a subject
needs to be explored further. It is almost always the case that straw votes
are intended to be internal and not publicized. I’m not suggesting it is
improper to mention the results of a straw poll but it would be incorrect
to characterize it as a formal board conclusion. After the straw poll,
further discussion ensued and presumably some issues were identified and
some actions identified, none of which rose to the level that required
explicit mention in the minutes. Those board members who had expressed
concern about Lila presumably were satisfied that there concerns had been
heard, and were fine with the decision that she should continue. Thus, it
is not incorrect to say that there was unanimous support that Lila should
continue as ED.



I don’t think there’s much doubt that the expression of unanimous support
mask the fact that some board members had some reservations, but this type
of thing occurs at most board meetings. While there are issues that need
clarification I don’t think this is one of them.


Phil (Sphilbrick)
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Inspire Campaign on content curation & review launches today!

[Aaron Halfaker]

Just filed another. \o/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Automatic_article_topic_detection

Build a classifier that associates articles with WikiProjects. This could
be used to route new article drafts to people with the right subject matter
expertise for review. For example, English Wikipedia has different
guidelines depending on topic. See en:Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
 for
example.

-Aaron

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Kacie Harold  wrote:

> Looking forward to all of the great ideas - thanks for your work on this,
> Chris, and for kicking off the campaign with a few submission, Aaron.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Anna Stillwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you. Great work.
>> /a
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Aaron Halfaker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just finished submitting two ideas that I'd like to advise.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Automated_good-faith_newcomer_detection
>>> Build and deploy a machine learning model for flagging newcomers who are
>>> editing in good-faith. This has the potential to mitigate some of the
>>> secondary, demotivational effects when good-faith newcomers' work passes
>>> through curation/review processes.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Fast_and_slow_new_article_review
>>> Concerns about the introduction of spam into Wikipedia has lead
>>> Wikipedians towards implementing high speed new article review/curation
>>> processes. The speed at which editors tag articles for deletion via these
>>> processes is great for dealing with spam, but it might also be faster that
>>> good-faith new article creators can build their articles. We could build a
>>> machine learning classifier that is tuned to detect spammy article drafts.
>>> This would allow the new pages queue to be split into a high-speed spammy
>>> article review, and a low-speed article review that allows creators time to
>>> make a better first draft.
>>>
>>> I'll submit some more when I can.  :)
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris "Jethro" Schilling <
>>> cschill...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 I am pleased to announce the launch of the second Inspire Campaign for
 IdeaLab.[1]  The theme of this campaign is focused on improving tasks
 related to content curation & review in our projects:

 

 Reviewing and organizing tasks are fundamental to all WIkimedia
 projects, and these efforts maintain and directly improve the quality of
 our projects in addition to increasing the visibility of their content.  We
 invite everyone to participate by sharing your ideas and proposals on how
 to enhance these efforts. Constructive feedback and collaboration on ideas
 is encouraged - your skills and advice can elevate a project into action.
 The campaign runs until 29 March.

 All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions,
 community organizing and outreach, or something completely new! Grants are
 available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects developed during this
 campaign that need financial support.[2]  Google Hangout sessions are
 available in March if you'd like to have a conversation about your 
 ideas.[3]

 Join the Inspire Campaign and let’s work together to improve review and
 curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and
 accessible.

 With thanks,

 Jethro

 [1] You can learn more about the results of the first Inspire Campaign
 here: <
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Spring_2015_Inspire_campaign>
 [2] 
 [3]   (Note: If
 another time would work better for you, feel free to e-mail me or ping me
 on-wiki).

 ---
 Chris "Jethro" Schilling
 I JethroBT (WMF)
 
 Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
 

 ___
 Wmfall mailing list
 wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wmfall mailing list
>>> wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anna Stillwell
>> Major Gifts Officer
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 415.806.1536
>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org *
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wmfall mailing list
>> wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Pine W]

Employees have some rights too, including the right to organize and the
right to quit. Good employees quitting may be a sign of problems with
management.

In WMF's case, many of the staff have plenty of employment options outside
of WMF, which is all the more reason to select a WMF ED who has good people
management skills in addition to a wide array of other skills.

Pine
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
matters.  It is about what board members chose to do and say.

It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila".  They chose to
state the latter.  That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board
actually did.

This is what I meant.  Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed
this to happen;  if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and
swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so
foolish that no one would do it.  But these were still choices that
individuals made in the context that existed.

These choices and those of other board members  - as individuals  -  have
created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.  This is
what we should focus on.  I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a
distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.

Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go
forward.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
> to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
> especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
> particular identifiable individual.  For legal reasons, it might be the
> case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from
> the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the
> public domain about how they regarded her performance.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
> > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
> > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
> > continuation was the best thing.
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qualities for the next long-term WMF executive director

[Oliver Keyes]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> If the research results about qualities of effective managers have been
>> generally consistent for 30 years, then I wonder why so many managers in so
>> many organizations today have mediocre skills in those areas.
>>
>
> I'd hazard a guess that it's because there are more management positions -
> many, many more - out there in the world then there are stellar managers.

Agreed. I also suspect it's a question of power dynamics; namely, a
senior manager is much more able to be bad at their job than an
employee first because there are so few good managers that poor
quality is the norm, but second because if you have a manager who is
terrible, particularly in a non-profit environment, the impact tends
to be felt by their employees - i.e. the people with the least power
in the situation to do anything about the problem. An incompetent
employee, on the other hand, hurts their managers, who do have that
power.

>
>
>
>> I also wonder, in WMF's case, what can be done to ensure that the next ED
>> is robustly skilled in those areas.
>>
>
> This is a good question, hopefully this will be documented during the
> search.
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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,