Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed one. It was a long time ago.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > Philippe, Luis, > > Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first time, > and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to remind > their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC vote. > Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either? > > At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation numbers, > so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is known. > > While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was covered > by non-disclosure agreements in your time? > > Andreas > > Andreas > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/V652IJG3GDYEW72A4BC3SKTX3XJF6Q7Y/ > 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/HHDS3IFL2UUZPQ3QT5YA3T3YTLZ36FZJ/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
