Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Just in case someone wonders,

Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:

[...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]


doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as "the 
governance model of the site" doesn't exist at all and nobody has any 
idea of who is going to take care of it.


Or in other words:

Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
> Gayle Karen Young wrote:
>
>> Hello folks,
>
> [...]
>
>> Gayle
>
> So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
> any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.

So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting 
with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my 
knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by 
chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that 
there's little room to do worse in this relationship.


Nemo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Nathan]

Hi Gayle,

I just wanted to say thanks for sharing. It does help personalize the
WMF to know a little more about its leadership group, and I think
having a sense of the personality behind the user account will temper
some of the more unmoderated members of the Wikimedia commentariat.
While I might quibble with some of your wording around the recent
controversy, I think your heart is in the right place and the working
relationships will become more comfortable as everyone gets to know
you better and as you become more accustomed to the wiki culture.
Thanks again and good luck!

~Nathan

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Richard Symonds]

Thanks, Gayle, for sharing this. It's interesting to read how people at
other organisations in the movement came to join us. I agree with Nathan: your
heart is clearly in the right place, and I promise you that the
working relationships
do become more comfortable (and reactions more understandable) in time.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 24 May 2013 16:36, Nathan  wrote:

> Hi Gayle,
>
> I just wanted to say thanks for sharing. It does help personalize the
> WMF to know a little more about its leadership group, and I think
> having a sense of the personality behind the user account will temper
> some of the more unmoderated members of the Wikimedia commentariat.
> While I might quibble with some of your wording around the recent
> controversy, I think your heart is in the right place and the working
> relationships will become more comfortable as everyone gets to know
> you better and as you become more accustomed to the wiki culture.
> Thanks again and good luck!
>
> ~Nathan
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[ENWP Pine]

> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:33:57 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Cc: Gayle Karen Young 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
>   other things)
> Message-ID: <519e6115@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Just in case someone wonders,
> 
> Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
> > [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
> > adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
> > clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
> 
> doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as "the 
> governance model of the site" doesn't exist at all and nobody has any 
> idea of who is going to take care of it.
> 
> Or in other words:
> 
> Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
>  > Gayle Karen Young wrote:
>  >
>  >> Hello folks,
>  >
>  > [...]
>  >
>  >> Gayle
>  >
>  > So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
>  > any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
> 
> So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting 
> with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my 
> knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by 
> chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that 
> there's little room to do worse in this relationship.
> 
> Nemo
> 


Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread awhile 
back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can find them
would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd ask you
to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most important.

Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and 
your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your 
explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with 
this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your 
position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would 
implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did, 
and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of 
Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture 
and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This 
situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry 
to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been 
harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's 
Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you 
should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your 
point of view.

Thanks,

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread 
awhile
back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can 
find them
would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd 
ask you
to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most 
important.


Hi Pine,

do you mean these:


1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community
members?
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Who precisely (what department) is responsible for the maintenance
of the wiki, and why didn't they perform their roles before?

4) For how long has the decision of removing adminship from those
community members been discussed behind the closed door of the WMF,
and who participated in that discussion?


5) what measures
are to be taken to exclude this in the future, and 6) how can we
continue assuming good faith and be nice to each other.

I do not recollect any other lists of questions.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Craig Franklin]

Wow, I'm on the road, bur suggesting that someone ought to leave after one
public error? That's brutal. Hope I never come across you while doing my
day job!

Cheers,
Craig
On 26/05/2013 5:35 AM, "ENWP Pine"  wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:33:57 +0200
> > From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Cc: Gayle Karen Young 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and
> >   other things)
> > Message-ID: <519e6115@gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Just in case someone wonders,
> >
> > Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
> > > [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
> > > adminstrator, which is often identified with community
> self-governance, is
> > > clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
> >
> > doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as "the
> > governance model of the site" doesn't exist at all and nobody has any
> > idea of who is going to take care of it.
> >
> > Or in other words:
> >
> > Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
> >  > Gayle Karen Young wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> Hello folks,
> >  >
> >  > [...]
> >  >
> >  >> Gayle
> >  >
> >  > So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers
> to
> >  > any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
> >
> > So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting
> > with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my
> > knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by
> > chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that
> > there's little room to do worse in this relationship.
> >
> > Nemo
> >
>
>
> Nemo, I think someone posted a list of good questions in this thread awhile
> back. I tried to find them but I gave up after ten minutes. If you can
> find them
> would you please repost them? If you can't find them either then I'd ask
> you
> to repeat the questions that you remember and think are most important.
>
> Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and
> your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your
> explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with
> this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your
> position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would
> implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did,
> and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of
> Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture
> and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This
> situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry
> to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been
> harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
> Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
> should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
> point of view.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Benjamin Lees]

 The way this whole affair was undertaken was unfortunate, but that can be
smoothed over with apologies.  The remaining issue is that the wrong
decision was made, and there's no way to fix that except to reverse the
decision.

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
> Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
> should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
> point of view.
>
>
I think this is a little over the top.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[MZMcBride]

Benjamin Lees wrote:
> The way this whole affair was undertaken was unfortunate, but that can be
>smoothed over with apologies.  The remaining issue is that the wrong
>decision was made, and there's no way to fix that except to reverse the
>decision.

This. It's not about making a mistake (or even a series of mistakes):
that's to be expected by any person doing anything. Making (and learning
from) mistakes is part of being human. The relationship here has certainly
been damaged, but to move forward, I don't think acknowledging that
mistakes were made is sufficient. It's about making things right.

It's particularly frustrating that wikis make mistakes very easy to undo
and yet somehow that process has completely failed us here. We encourage
boldness, as the next steps (a reversion and discussion) are supposed to
be easy. I suppose this principle doesn't apply to a wiki coup.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Steve Zhang]

On 26 May 2013 07:35, ENWP Pine  wrote:

>
> Gayle, I am going to be frank. I think I know a little more about you and
> your work than the average member of this list does. I appreciate your
> explanations and apologies, but I'm continuing to have a hard time with
> this situation. With your many years of leadership experience, and in your
> position as Chief Culture and Talent Officer, it's shocking that you would
> implement such a significant change in the unprofessional way that you did,
> and of all people I would have expected you and Philippe (Director of
> Community Advocacy) to be acutely aware of our consensus-based culture
> and how to implement changes in a diplomatic and professional way. This
> situation has been a disaster for WMF-Community relations, and I'm sorry
> to say that my feeling is that the credibility of you and Philippe has been
> harmed beyond repair. Do you think you should continue to be WMF's
> Chief Culture and Talent Officer? I have a hard time believing that you
> should continue in that role after this disaster, but I want to hear your
> point of view.
>
>
I've thought long and hard about whether to reply here, and I have decided
that I will. Our mailing lists too often become an ugly place where the
worst of us comes out for all to see. I feel that regarding this matter,
some here have stepped over the line. Having your own opinion is fine, as
is providing criticism, but attacking others (or in general, saying things
that make them feel like crap) is not. As one who has worked to resolve the
disputes of others (both on-wiki and in real life) I think it needs to be
said that the current tension that has been created needs to dissipate.
Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
other changes) happened for a reason, and I'm not going to comment on
whether I think it was the right decision to make or not - I'm not
qualified to do that. I do think that it could have been carried out in a
better fashion, and that if the community was given more notice of the
changes, with an explanation of the reasons for making them, then the
response from the community would not have been as dramatic. But that said,
Gayle has offered her apologies. And I accept them. I think we all should.
We have all made mistakes within our time, and we should not be remembered
solely by our errors. We need to move on.

Remember, we are all working towards the same goal - a world in which every
single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. I would
invite all reading this mailing list thread to reflect on what has
happened, and the actions you have taken. Think about what you can take
away from this, and how you can use the experience to improve yourself. And
most importantly, remember that when you send someone an email, a text, a
tweet, a talk page message, that there is a real person on the receiving
end, and what you say impacts them. If you wouldn't like to be on the
receiving end of what you say, consider whether there's a better way to say
it, or say nothing at all. I think if we all did this in our day to day
lives, they would be much more happy and pleasant ones.

Regards,
*Steven Zhang*
*cro0...@gmail.com*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

I can agree with the rest but this is interesting:

Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 08:42:

[...]
Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
other changes) happened for a reason, [...]


really? What reason? I've not yet heard an explanation other than "it's 
our wiki and we do whatever we wish: I'll prove you in a second!".
I also agree that judging the decision is useless (it's not going to be 
reverted) and that it's not our job (the WMF board should do that, I 
guess), but if you know the reason then please share it because we're 
all clueless about it.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Steve Zhang]

On 26 May 2013 16:53, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> I can agree with the rest but this is interesting:
>
> Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 08:42:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Now, the removal of adminship of volunteer editors on the WMF wiki (among
>> other changes) happened for a reason, [...]
>>
>
> really? What reason? I've not yet heard an explanation other than "it's
> our wiki and we do whatever we wish: I'll prove you in a second!".
> I also agree that judging the decision is useless (it's not going to be
> reverted) and that it's not our job (the WMF board should do that, I
> guess), but if you know the reason then please share it because we're all
> clueless about it.
>
> Nemo
>

Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
days ago, like everyone else this is all the information I have. Whether or
not we agree with her reasons is a moot point, as she has noted that her
decision will stand. I don't think this was ever done to make community
members unhappy, and while that turned out to be one of the results, I
think we should let it go. Like many things on Wikimedia, this is a
discussion that has run its natural should be laid to rest, and we should
move on to more productive things.

Steven Zhang
cro0...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 09:08:

Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
days ago, [...]


Ah. I didn't notice, can you please quote the relevant passage[s]? Maybe 
I missed some, it was a very long message and its purpose didn't seem to 
explain reasons for the action.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[cro0016]

I believe the relevant passage of text is this one:

"Wikimedia Foundation wiki has always been uniquely governed among the family 
of Wikimedia wikis, with decision-making
authority historically placed with the WMF itself due to its purpose
(hosting of official documents like bylaws, IRS tax returns, Board
resolutions, staff listings, official WMF communications of various kinds,
etc.). While the Board was described as the decision-making authority for
content disputes before the organization had paid staff, in day-to-day
practice, staff members are now helping to maintain and post many of those
documents.

Consistent with this, my goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: the organization,
with that function delegated to staff members in day-to-day practice, is
directly responsible for making and arbitrating decisions on the Wikimedia
Foundation’s website. This does not preclude volunteers from being granted
administrative-level access where a project requires it and where we have a
good working relationship that makes this possible. However, I wanted to
create clarity as early and possible, and therefore requested that
administrator accounts initially be limited to staff."

Steve Zhang
Sent from my iPad

On 26/05/2013, at 6:04 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:

> Steve Zhang, 26/05/2013 09:08:
>> Gayle explained her reasons in the email she sent to this list around 3
>> days ago, [...]
> 
> Ah. I didn't notice, can you please quote the relevant passage[s]? Maybe I 
> missed some, it was a very long message and its purpose didn't seem to 
> explain reasons for the action.
> 
> Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Deryck Chan]

In contrast to my post in the original thread (that I'm sceptical about how
long WMF wiki will survive without volunteer admins), I do think the WMF is
allowed their own piece of turf.

In general, when there's an "owner" of a WMF-hosted wiki, we generally
allow the "owner" group to have totalitarian control over who gets
adminship of the wiki. (eg. chapter wikis, Wikimania wikis - I'm grateful
that thehelpfulone respected the WM2013's local team's request to not grant
adminship to anyone without the team's explicit approval.)

Now it comes to the WMF's own wiki, and we freak out when WMF wants their
piece of turf back. True that the WMF wiki has *traditionally* been
community-managed; but that was an exception because of how old this wiki
is. With the legal responsibility of the WMF at stake, I do think the
community should be nice to the WMF (for once!) and let them keep the *
nominal* control over the wiki. (I say "nominal" because, as many have
pointed out, raw HTML can be used on the WMF wiki, which kind of means that
anyone entrusted with a WMF wiki account can still screw everyone over if
they so wish.)

Deryck

On 23 May 2013 19:33, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> Just in case someone wonders,
>
> Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
>
>> [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
>>
>> adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
>> clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
>>
>
> doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as "the
> governance model of the site" doesn't exist at all and nobody has any idea
> of who is going to take care of it.
>
> Or in other words:
>
> Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
> > Gayle Karen Young wrote:
> >
> >> Hello folks,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Gayle
> >
> > So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
> > any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
>
> So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting
> with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my
> knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by
> chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there's
> little room to do worse in this relationship.
>
> Nemo
>
>
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Deryck Chan, 26/05/2013 11:27:

In contrast to my post in the original thread (that I'm sceptical about how
long WMF wiki will survive without volunteer admins), I do think the WMF is
allowed their own piece of turf.

In general, when there's an "owner" of a WMF-hosted wiki, we generally
allow the "owner" group to have totalitarian control over who gets
adminship of the wiki. (eg. chapter wikis, Wikimania wikis - I'm grateful
that thehelpfulone respected the WM2013's local team's request to not grant
adminship to anyone without the team's explicit approval.)


Sure. Except that in those cases it's clear who's in charge, for 
instance the wikimania team. Who's in charge of the wiki here? How many 
other times does this need to be asked?


Nemo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Again, this is going to be a general e–mail, so I'm not going to quote 
anyone in particular, and will just refer to some parts of the e–mails 
sent before this one.


First of all, I think some of you guys should really stop freaking out 
about the alleged level of attacks in this thread (and the previous 
one). I haven't seen anyone say anything really outrageous here, and the 
mere expression of an opinion that someone should be fired is /not/ a 
personal attack. Requiring that people better be nice than honest will 
not help solve anything, in the same way that sending small novels 
without really answering any questions does not help anything.


The fact is that none of the questions asked have been answered yet, 
almost three weeks since the situation happened. The thread has not 
died—people are just waiting for some true answers, other than "it's our 
wiki" and "it's always been uniquely governed."


I'm not sure whether this is related to Gayle's joining the WMF just 16 
months ago, but the uniqueness of the WMF wiki was never like she (and 
apparently Sue, if I recall correctly) described it.


The decision-making authority has never been placed "with the 
WMF"—rather, the wiki was an example of a pretty good symbiosis between 
the WMF staff, who have been posting official documents, press releases, 
keeping the staff list up-to-date, and maintaining their user pages, and 
between the volunteers, who have been doing all sorts of things—from 
fixing typos, importing translations, to creating new accounts and 
deleting redundant templates.


This worked quite well, with some minor to moderate glitches, until May 
(April?) this year, when someone thought it was such a good idea to just 
go ahead and remove adminship from all those volunteers. (Yes, I'm no 
longer AGF-ing here.)


You cannot expect people to stop bringing this topic up until they get — 
in their feeling — satisfactory answers, and it is my impression that at 
least some people don't feel that way.


-- Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[ENWP Pine]

Sigh. This is a difficult situation. I don't think anyone has suggested that 
firing Gayle or Philippe should happen. However, I have concerns about keeping 
Gayle in the Chief Talent and Culture Officer position. I directed that concern 
to her and I want to hear what she thinks. There may be good reasons to keep 
her in that position, on the other hand it might be better if she had some time 
to learn in a WMF position for which she's a better fit at the moment. At a top 
5 website I think the performance expectations for C-level positions are high 
with good reason. I have significant concerns when someone with many years of 
leadership development experience makes the kind of mistakes that she appears 
to have made, especially when that person is the C-level officer that is 
supposed to be the subject matter expert in that area for all of WMF and that 
person is heavily involved in selecting the next ED. My experiences with Gayle 
prior to this one were positive and I've heard good things about her from 
others, but this situation should be examined with great care.

I currently hope that Gayle stays with WMF, but perhaps in a different position 
for awhile with the option of returning to the C-level some distance in the 
future. I want to hear what Gayle thinks. My views at this point are based on 
the incomplete information that's publicly available, and there are important 
unanswered questions in this situation. I hope we learn more from Gayle.

I know that the easy thing to do is to drop this issue and move on to the next 
problem, but I agree with Thomasz that easy thing to do isn't necessarily the 
best thing to do. Sometimes the best things and the right things involve asking 
hard questions and having difficult conversations.

 I think it's probably tough on a lot of us to 
read and participate in this discussion. On-wiki discussions about whether 
people should be de-adminned or blocked
 are often public, and while I think it's appropriate that we have this 
difficult conversation in public since the actions that started this 
situation were public, this is an awfully difficult situation and I'm sorry 
that we're all in it. We need to deal with it as best we can. I wish it was 
easy.

Pine

  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[David Gerard]

On 26 May 2013 12:18, Tomasz W. Kozlowski  wrote:

> You cannot expect people to stop bringing this topic up until they get — in
> their feeling — satisfactory answers, and it is my impression that at least
> some people don't feel that way.


+1


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Bence Damokos]

Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
is taking the situation a bit too far.
At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
punishment already.

It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and perhaps
explain their reasons), which they have done.
If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part of
the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
the option to "punish" the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this tit-for-tat
satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
lead to any good results.

I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation that
is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]

I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to accept
the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any satisfaction
in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's wiki, and move
on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional persons, one mistake
does not defy them and I am sure the existing relationships will be healed
through other channels of interaction and working together.

For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be helpful
if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level and
venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind of
training is provided to WMF employees.

Best regards,
Bence


[1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
questions (their pre-coded "response") can be lowering the quality of some
of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
the Q&A format.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Bence Damokos]

(typo fix)


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
> is taking the situation a bit too far.
> At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
> punishment already.
>
> It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
> can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and perhaps
> explain their reasons), which they have done.
> If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part of
> the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
> the option to "punish" the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
> same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this tit-for-tat
> satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
> relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
> lead to any good results.
>
> I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
> line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
> defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
> can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
> going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
> the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation that
> is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]
>
> I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to
> accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any
> satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's
> wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional
> persons, one mistake does not define them and I am sure the existing
> relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and
> working together.
>
> For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be helpful
> if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
> helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
> including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level and
> venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind of
> training is provided to WMF employees.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
>
> [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
> questions (their pre-coded "response") can be lowering the quality of some
> of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
> the Q&A format.
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Deryck Chan]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

>
> > Personally I think this line of the conversation (people resigning/fired)
> > is taking the situation a bit too far.
> > At the least not having volunteers administer the WMF's wiki is just
> > punishment already.
> >
> > It seems that the WMF is unlikely to change its policy, so the best they
> > can do to heal the hurt caused by their action is to apologise (and
> perhaps
> > explain their reasons), which they have done.
> > If they had restored the admin rights, that would have healed some part
> of
> > the hurt but not all of it, and the affected volunteers would still have
> > the option to "punish" the WMF by not caring about their wiki (i.e. the
> > same situation the WMF has chosen for itself). Apart from this
> tit-for-tat
> > satisfaction and giving enough time to heal and restore the trusts and
> > relationships, I do not think that further debating this decision would
> > lead to any good results.
> >
> > I have the feeling that we will not get more satisfactory answers as the
> > line of questioning going on creates a situation where the WMF can only
> > defend themselves - I am sure they have shared their best arguments that
> > can be published and the harder they are pushed the more likely they are
> > going to scramble to make up further reasons (instead of either changing
> > the decision or admitting that they had no better reasons) a situation
> that
> > is unlikely to improve the situation in the way the questioners hope.[1]
> >
> > I would recommend for those personally hurt by the WMF's decision to
> > accept the WMF's apology, stay in the movement but if they feel any
> > satisfaction in it, mete out the punishment of not caring about the WMF's
> > wiki, and move on. The people working at the WMF are multidimensional
> > persons, one mistake does not define them and I am sure the existing
> > relationships will be healed through other channels of interaction and
> > working together.
> >
> > For those of us who were not hurt (this time), I think it would be
> helpful
> > if we moved the discussions towards more constructive areas: for example,
> > helping come up with some guidelines on community-WMF interactions,
> > including suggestions on best timing of news and the appropriate level
> and
> > venue of consultations before major decisions, and making sure this kind
> of
> > training is provided to WMF employees.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> >
> > [1] It is just an intuition, but I fear that this property of some
> > questions (their pre-coded "response") can be lowering the quality of
> some
> > of the other community review discussions (FDC, GAC, AffCom) that rely on
> > the Q&A format.
>

Yes. Because ten years ago the community set WMF's agenda. But nowadays WMF
staff sets the community's agenda and presents them as a done deal. Hurtful
examples from the last year or two are now springing into my mind like a
fountain.

Deryck


> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Svavar Kjarrval]

Hi.

There's also the viewpoint that a person being fired could go overboard
and do irreparable harm to the site and the public's view of the WMF.
There's of course the possibility to revert the changes on the website,
since it is a wiki, but very hard to do on the public opinion, like if a
soon-to-be-fired admin changed a protected page to something which would
damage public relations of the WMF. That's why many companies don't want
fired employees to continue working for them after the employee
termination has been announced.

Of course a counter-argument would be that a majority of those admins
wouldn't do something like that and I don't doubt their good intentions.
But the WMF wouldn't be aware of which admin would go on an unwarranted
rampage, if any, and who wouldn't. The safest approach would be to take
away their admin privileges without a prior announcement. I do agree,
though, that some kind of public announcement should have been made
after the fact regarding this policy change and the former admins
thanked for their contributions.

With regards,
Svavar Kjarrval



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Brandon Harris]

On May 28, 2013, at 12:38 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> However, I have concerns about keeping Gayle in the Chief Talent and Culture 
> Officer position.


This type of conversation is really not helpful in any way.  I don't 
know what you're expecting here.


---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Nathan]

Pine says no one suggested firing Gayle or Philippe; I think it's
clear that whatever semantics are invoked, he did suggest just that.
That's beyond inappropriate, in my view, and an example of the toxic
environment that will lead to less fruitful communication from the WMF
and not more. It's not in Pine's remit as a volunteer to propose that
WMF employees be demoted, especially over something as picayune as
administrator rights on a wiki with minimal traffic and less
importance.

It's unfathomable that Pine thinks he should be writing to Gayle in
this way, as if he were her superior and she was obligated to justify
her continued employment to him personally. In multiple comments in
recent posts Pine has implied that he has real-world expertise in this
area... at this point, I find that implication unsupported by evidence
of communication skills or the ability to appropriately judge context
and audience reaction.

It's not traditional to so directly call out a commenter on this list
for posts that step over the line, particularly when they remain civil
despite being wildly inappropriate. But I think we need to understand
that the relationship between volunteers (especially those on the
mailing lists) and the WMF is a two way street. We can't expect them
to engage better with us if we permit, even by silence, this type of
haranguing to continue unchallenged.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Huib Laurens]

Hi,

I strongly believe that the Foundation shouldn't do actions like this on a
Friday. In this case there was a major discussion about it and nobody from
the foundation was there to respond.

But this week the new MediaWiki version is released on Friday, there is a
bug (wrong version details) the bug is minor but there is nobody to fix it
untill today. The team say's its just a small bug... But if somebody
install new software and it says release candidate they can lose trust.

Maybe we should make a policy that a mass-desysop, a new release or any
other statement shouldn't be on Friday so that there is somebody arround to
respond.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:

>
> On May 28, 2013, at 12:38 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:
>
> > However, I have concerns about keeping Gayle in the Chief Talent and
> Culture Officer position.
>
>
> This type of conversation is really not helpful in any way.  I
> don't know what you're expecting here.
>
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib Laurens
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> Pine says no one suggested firing Gayle or Philippe; I think it's
> clear that whatever semantics are invoked, he did suggest just that.
> That's beyond inappropriate, in my view, and an example of the toxic
> environment that will lead to less fruitful communication from the WMF
> and not more. It's not in Pine's remit as a volunteer to propose that
> WMF employees be demoted, especially over something as picayune as
> administrator rights on a wiki with minimal traffic and less
> importance.
>
> It's unfathomable that Pine thinks he should be writing to Gayle in
> this way, as if he were her superior and she was obligated to justify
> her continued employment to him personally. In multiple comments in
> recent posts Pine has implied that he has real-world expertise in this
> area... at this point, I find that implication unsupported by evidence
> of communication skills or the ability to appropriately judge context
> and audience reaction.
>
> It's not traditional to so directly call out a commenter on this list
> for posts that step over the line, particularly when they remain civil
> despite being wildly inappropriate. But I think we need to understand
> that the relationship between volunteers (especially those on the
> mailing lists) and the WMF is a two way street. We can't expect them
> to engage better with us if we permit, even by silence, this type of
> haranguing to continue unchallenged.
>

I agree with this; thanks for saying it.

==about communication in general==
I think it's worth remembering we all judge each other on the tone and
content of messages that we send here (some sending pseudonymously, some
not). Sometimes I think many of us feel comfortable in saying things that
we might think privately or say casually to a friend, without thinking
about how: a) hundreds of people, including people who have spent years and
years devoted to this work (staff and volunteers alike) may read it and be
affected*; b) these messages are how our own reputations get shaped online,
both good and bad; c) we all just have one perspective on Wikimedia, shaped
by our own experience, which is not necessarily the same as everyone
else's.

-- phoebe


* I've had plenty of bad days because of the way Wikimedia-l threads made
me feel about our projects, and plenty of good ones too. I'm not alone in
this.

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l