For our multicultural context... that's a compliment of high order. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Delphine, you're a bad ass. > /a > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Hi Delphine, >> >> many thanks for your insight, and I definitely understand why you're >> pointing out the problematic areas, as well as I share some of your >> specific concerns. >> >> I'm going to fall silent on the list for a while, as I really don't want >> to >> sound as the "nothing to watch, move on" guy, and I don't have anything >> concrete to add. >> >> take care! :) >> >> dj >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Delphine Ménard <notafi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions >> > (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our >> > multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he >> > made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration. >> > >> > This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most >> > daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list. >> > >> > And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this >> > is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate >> > in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of >> > admitting failure. >> > >> > I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It >> > was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency. >> > When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global >> > Corporation, and stopped cherishing our diversity and leverage it to >> > do that thing we once all dreamed of "taking over the world". I will >> > give you a few examples which I think illustrate the failure to be >> > bold in organisational ways. They might shed a light on today's >> > governance chaos. >> > >> > Fundraising & Trademark: For the longest time, we've been analyzing >> > what risks there were if Chapter/Entity XYZ fundraised, or used the >> > trademark. What are the terrible things that would happen if someone >> > got in trouble at the other end of the world and they had anything to >> > do with Wikimedia or Wikimedia money. No-one ever said: "let us find a >> > solution to leverage our diversity and fundraise all over the world, >> > and make sure that we get all there is to get, together". Or: "Let us >> > recognize how every single person using the trademark is an asset to >> > that trademark". No one said, let us work together to make sure that >> > our organisational network represents our diversity, our collective >> > core. We're only afraid of what may happen if. We are afraid, or cosy. >> > After 10 years, Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Switzerland are the >> > only parts of the world where fundraising is happening locally. And >> > it's not because anyone ever thought that they did it better (well, I >> > do ;)), but because of technicalities. We have never thanked the >> > thousands of volunteers handing out flyers for their part in making >> > our trademark an amazing thing. instead, we're calculating all the >> > risks, the "what happens if". The "product" by definition is owned by >> > all of us, and more. While protecting it is a good thing, keeping it >> > behind bars isn't. We are diverse, we will make mistakes and learn >> > from them. We freaking built an encyclopedia, of course we can take >> > care of it without having to fear everyone and their brother! And >> > while an organisation is not a wiki, and revert not always an option, >> > I'm pretty sure that >> > >> > Governance: No members at the Foundation. OK, I am not for or against >> > it, but the whole speech "we answer to 80000 volunteers" which has >> > been served to me over the years (as opposed to a mere 300 members in >> > that chapter or that other) is a load of BS. Because what I have >> > observed in the past few years, the Board only serves itself or the ED >> > (your pick), or "the Foundation" (the word "fiduciary responsibility" >> > still makes me cringe today). I am questioning who feels "served" >> > today. Doesn't seem like a lot of people. But you know, nobody >> > represents anyone, they're only "selected"... >> > >> > Governance again: 10 board members. No clear cut majority, ever. >> > Impossible. No-one can take charge and make things change drastically. >> > Not the community and "chapter" seats, not the appointed people. An >> > inertia of the likes I have *never* seen. I have been very close to >> > the board in extremely different contexts, extremely different >> > constellations and I have come to the conclusion that however smart >> > the people on it were, the sum of their intelligence as a collective >> > body amounted to less than their average intelligence when taken as >> > individuals. Insane. You cannot "govern" when the gap in opinions is >> > so huge that you can only always go for the "middle", which makes >> > nobody happy. I have seen people on the board get lashed at because >> > their vote on the outside looked like they were betraying the people >> > they were close to. But we don't know what the options on the table >> > were, and who knows, how they might have been so much worse. So middle >> > it is. Bold is but a faint memory (and the bold ones still get lashed >> > at, look at Dariusz being the only one talking here, and the one who >> > takes the blows). >> > >> > Loyalty: We never really prodded for loyalty. Chapters were left to >> > develop in their own chaotic ways, pushed away because they were a >> > risk, and when they strayed they were put back under the iron hand of >> > the Foundation and handled like kids. We never said: "gals and guys, >> > we're all in this together, let us work together to be better, >> > together". I know I am not doing justice to all the amazing work that >> > has been done in the grants department, among others, but hear me out. >> > I want chapters and affiliates and communities and staff to feel they >> > owe and own the Foundation at the same time. Back to "governance >> > again", no representation, a self-serving body. There are still (too >> > many) people out there who feel "the Foundation" does not represent >> > them. How do we change that? How do we make sure that people feel they >> > have a voice, and give them the will to give back to the whole? >> > >> > Impact: Wow, that one is a big one. We don't know the impact we have >> > because we never really asked ourselves what impact in our context >> > really means. Oh, we do have data, tons of it. But what does it mean >> > to have impact when you're Wikimedia? page views? Number of mobile >> > devices in the Global South (sorry kittens) accessing the content for >> > free? Number of mentions of Wikipedia at dinner parties to check who's >> > right or who's wrong on who last won the Superbowl? We're trying hard, >> > but not finding a common definition. Or even agreeing on the fact that >> > there might not be one. Again, how do we find a common direction? It >> > takes leadership in thinking out difficult questions and strength in >> > making them heard and embraced. One thing is sure, there are many >> > people asking others to show impact, but no-one within our governance >> > ranks making a real and beneficial one in giving a strong sense of >> > direction. >> > >> > So yes, I think I understand your frustration. And I wish that someone >> > had the boldness to take their fingers out of their... ears, and make >> > things change. Too many people in too little time have been "moving >> > on" or "exploring other opportunities". And this is indeed a strong >> > sign that something must be done. You pointed out in a direction, I am >> > of a mind that it is not the only direction, even if it might be the >> > most acute and the (relatively) easiest to address. >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Delphine >> > >> > >> > PS. For history's sake, I have worked for the Foundation, I have left >> > it too, I know the feeling, to my bones. It was not an easy decision >> > and today, 8 years later, there are times where I regret it, and >> > others when I think to myself "good riddance". I also had quite a few >> > other volunteer roles in chapters, committees and whatnots. >> > >> > PPS. I say *we* and take my part of responsibility, as I have been in >> > positions where I should have worked harder at changing things. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < >> dar...@alk.edu.pl> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations >> > >> working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective >> of >> > >> many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely >> > leading >> > >> here, too! ;) >> > >> >> > > >> > > No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly >> hard >> > > to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good >> results >> > to >> > > show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six >> seconds to >> > > save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki >> > > deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page >> load >> > > times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in >> > the >> > > press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how >> to >> > > count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy >> and >> > > rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team >> is >> > in >> > > the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the >> first >> > > comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The >> TechOps >> > > team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go >> > > HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by >> > > provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, >> and >> > is >> > > currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover >> > capabilities, >> > > which is to happen this Spring. >> > > >> > > That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, >> and >> > > says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being >> > > featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user >> > rating >> > > than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, >> etc. >> > Or >> > > the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content >> Translation >> > > tool. >> > > >> > > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the >> top. >> > > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of >> people >> > > from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the >> > Board's >> > > unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing >> off. >> > > The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local >> > and >> > > specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly. >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> , >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > @notafish >> > >> > NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will >> get >> > lost. >> > Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - >> > http://blog.notanendive.org >> > Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________ >> *Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark >> dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org >> <dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact >> address. * >> _______________________________________________ >> 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, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > > > -- > Anna Stillwell > Major Gifts Officer > Wikimedia Foundation > 415.806.1536 > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>* > > -- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>* _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
