Yeah, even if it seems like volunteers are treated as second class
citizens, advocating mistreatment of staff too isn't going to resolve
anything. We should all just try to do our best, and all realise that
these are /peolpe/ we're dealing with. It's not always going to be
perfect, it's not always going to be professional... and this goes both
ways. We shouldn't expect needlessly high standards of behaviour or
putting up with things from anyone, on any side.
-I
On 08/08/18 17:54, Brion Vibber wrote:
Oleg -- I interpret that suggestion as "employees of WMF and WMDE have to
accept all ongoing abuse they are given without complaint"; that may not be
what you intended but that's how I read it, and I'd like to unequivocally
*reject that notion*.
WMF and WMDE employees are people performing a job, and deserve a safe work
environment. When it's suggested that long-term abusive behavior against
employees be tolerated because it's not a big deal or it's just volunteers
letting off steam, I have to counter that it *is* a big deal. It promotes
burn-out and harms people both personally and professionally.
Please don't be part of that cycle of abuse and burn-out, all. It's not
cool, it's not productive, it's not funny, and it doesn't help you get what
you wanted done.
-- brion
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM Saint Johann <ole.y...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure.
Wikimedia Foundation employees inherently have more privilege and weight
in MediaWiki developer community than the volunteers do, especially less
participating ones. Power dynamics of the discussion between a volunteer
and an employee (and, sometimes even more generally on Phabricator) are
structured in a way in that more than frequently an end decision will be
taken not by volunteers or all Wikimedia community, but by employees or
people that are more well-versed in MediaWiki development spaces (who
also can happen to be employees).
Code of conduct is important to be enforced, but, in my opinion, there
should be a difference in how it’s enforced. To volunteers that help the
movement, there should be no unacceptable language, as it is a way (and
a purpose of something like code of conduct) to make MediaWiki
development spaces more welcoming to future volunteers.
However, employees, while in their capacity, should be (in reasonable
amounts) less guarded against non-constructive criticism, because at
many times all you can provide to someone’s work decisions could only be
non-constructive because you know that no minds and hearts will be
changed by any amount of constructive criticism. I am, of course, not
talking about any kinds of serious stuff (Jimmy Wales language), but
more about ‘WTF language’.
Oleg
On 08/08/2018 19:20, Arlo Breault wrote:
On Aug 8, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Saint Johann <ole.y...@gmail.com> wrote:
especially when said to Wikimedia employees as opposed to volunteers.)
Can you elaborate on that?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
