What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have left > the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly, > including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad > experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and > beyond the Foundation*. > > To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike the > Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the Foundation > of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just maybe, that’s a > sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never did while I was > there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any different under > Katherine.] > > There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the movement. It > pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally imaginary one. > > Luis > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anne, Alphos, >> >> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and ill-informed" >> for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. At the end of >> the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to do things – >> and comply so as to keep their jobs. >> >> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents >> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a >> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking about?) >> >> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign non-disclosure >> agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure agreements look like – >> nobody would say. :) It seems there is a non-disclosure agreement about the >> non-disclosure agreements. If I am wrong, someone please post theirs here! >> >> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what the >> mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and James >> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF >> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because they >> were scared. >> >> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump about >> how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how they'd >> had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about a toxic >> management culture. >> >> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying, neglect >> of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of inclusion, >> lack of recognition, from mid and upper management".[2] >> >> Does this inspire anyone with confidence? >> >> Official WMF communications meanwhile always sound cheery and upbeat. >> >> Shani's post introducing this thread is a case in point. It leaves me ill >> at ease because of the things it elides, the way it tries to erase >> disputes. >> >> Shani (or whoever else drafted these passages for the board) refers *three >> times* to how the Universal Code of Conduct was "collaboratively >> (co-)created" before it was ratified by the Board. >> >> The text then goes on to say that "The Board strongly supports the >> proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community >> voting on the enforcement guidelines". >> >> A reader could be excused for thinking the Board were in happy agreement >> with the Arbitration Committees. >> >> But one of the key points of the Arbitration Committees' letter[3] was >> precisely their concern about the "lack of formal consultation with >> projects before the board approved the UCoC [which] means it risks being >> seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above". >> >> María's term seems apposite here: simply repeating that the Universal >> Code of Conduct was "collaboratively created" when elected community >> representatives have told the WMF the community felt left out is ... >> gaslighting. >> >> Arguably, that is precisely the kind of "psychological manipulation" the >> Universal Code of Conduct seeks to forbid. It is also the kind of >> psychological manipulation beloved of politicians. It is an effort to >> "manage" public opinion, rather than an honest and respectful communication >> made in the spirit of a partnership. >> >> The Arbitration Committees' letter further mentions Superprotect and >> Framgate and that there should be a way to make changes to the Universal >> Code of Conduct – which the WMF has refused, saying here on this list that >> it will not entertain any discussion of the text until sometime in 2023.[4] >> >> This is "imposing from above", and as long as that isn't acknowledged, >> there is little reason to trust the WMF. >> >> Andreas >> >> >> [1] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1033011093#I_feel_like_shit >> [2] https://twitter.com/marianarra_/status/1410312378068004866?s=19 >> [3] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees >> [4] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/AAGTJLSWDFKTQDUG7BHNOQ4ZYMIULYIF/?sort=date >> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:29 PM Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Andreas - >>> >>> Wikimedia staff are as much a part of the community as everyone else is; >>> hundreds of them come from community roots, and the Wikimedia community >>> remains the single largest recruitment pool for roles within the WMF. A >>> non-negligible percentage of WMF staff devote a very significant portion of >>> their non-working hours to volunteer work on our projects. >>> >>> If you want to look at historic participation in elections, staff of the >>> WMF and other affiliates have an exceptionally low participation rate. >>> It's unclear why you'd think that would change - even when they have had an >>> opportunity to influence Board of Trustees elections (which actually do >>> affect them far more than the average community member), they haven't taken >>> advantage of that. I'm a little concerned that you think Wikimedia staff >>> are so craven and ill-informed that they could be pressured to vote in that >>> way. Since it will no doubt be a secret ballot, there is no way for any >>> employer to control the outcome of this election; all they'd know is >>> whether or not an employee voted, not *how* they voted. And since any >>> individual can only vote once, an employee could simply use their volunteer >>> account, which is usually much easier than having their staff name >>> whitelisted. Frankly, there are a dozen projects that have a far greater >>> potential opportunity to control the outcome. >>> >>> Whatever one may believe about the draft UCoC, it is largely developed >>> from existing behavioural norms on several of our large projects; thus, >>> most of it is a summary of what volunteers on various projects have been >>> doing, in some cases for almost two decades. It also reflects the >>> experiences of the codes of conduct that have been applied to the volunteer >>> developer area for several years, as well as the codes of conduct applied >>> to most in-person events hosted by WMF and Wikimedia affiliates for many >>> years. >>> >>> I'm not particularly worried that someone will mess up the SecurePoll, >>> or that it will permit decoding to the point of linking individuals to >>> specific votes. Having said that, it would be realistic to have the key to >>> the election retained by someone outside of the direct Wikimedia community >>> (e.g., someone from EFF) who can be available to decode the results once >>> the standard checks are done. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 16:17, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Shani, >>>> >>>> The prospect of potentially several hundred Wikimedia >>>> employees/contractors taking part in this vote is somewhat disturbing, >>>> especially in combination with a 50% threshold. >>>> >>>> Few decisions in the history of Wikipedia and Wikimedia have attracted >>>> participation from 1,000 or more volunteers. With a head start of 800 or >>>> more WMF and affiliate employees voting, who could be directed to vote as a >>>> block by their management, you would theoretically be able to push through >>>> anything, even if up to 90% of volunteers object ... (I don't think the >>>> UCoC, given its history, is much more popular than the rebranding was) ... >>>> and then declare it the result of a democratic process. >>>> >>>> Even if staff are not directed by management to participate, and are >>>> not directed to vote one way or another, I do not see how they (or the >>>> community, for that matter) can trust that this is a free and secret ballot >>>> for them, unless the process is administered outside the WMF. >>>> >>>> Could you say something about this? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Andreas >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/3HVGANIGR25HQFX25BDTI5YU4BK6YTMB/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/QHYUW2MUYYS7ENFIGFG2QUVHMGAKMD2N/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/H363UINHJHMBIMZ4Q3LLJBRQJ3Q6YIO4/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/W7NXRENOSSZWGRUR5AXP7UPWGFP4HWRF/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Philippe Beaudette [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/3N7PGH4QNZIM25MAOUKH2HMHKEJKOD2E/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
