On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Dan Rosenthal wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote: >>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether, >>> to escape the unfounded criticism. >> >> This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of >> weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their actions >> on >> this list -- in some cases not even their own actions. Obviously, we should >> be transparent and accountable, and this list is a great tool towards that >> end. But that doesn't mean that WMF employee's actions should be assumed to >> default to "wrong" until proven otherwise. Otherwise, the limited number of >> employees that actually do subscribe to this list, simply won't anymore. > > Most Wikimedia employees don't post or subscribe to this list already, > though I don't think it has very much to do with criticism. Wikimedia > employees are required to be subscribed to staff-l, but they're not required > to be subscribed to this list (or any other Wikimedia mailing lists, in > general). Mailing lists are a goofy and foreign concept to most people, so > Wikimedia employees take the time to do what's required of them, but nothing > more. That's to be expected. Personally, I think it's rather strange that > people working for an organization don't pay more attention to this list and > the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, but that's their choice to make. > > A few Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there > should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, > though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I > can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly > harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a > responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the > issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki....) > > It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "wrong," that's a bad > and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an > organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. > Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately > among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even > notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the > resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. > > MZMcBride > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including ones where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" public list we have.) You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) fault. -Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
