I don't have a problem with WMF staff voting, so long as they meet the community voting guidelines; as Risker notes, many staff members are part of the community. But staffers who do *not* otherwise meet the standard for a community member to vote should not be voting.
Also, the exact wording of how the poll question will be composed is an absolute imperative to be known and debated openly *before* the question is asked. As we know from opinion polls and even state ballot initiatives, it only takes the targeted inclusion or omission of as little as a word or two to turn a poll into a push poll. Dan On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:59 PM Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from > six-ish years ago: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/F66SZYF5YHJ4IDX2XIUYYX2ODABV4B6A/ > 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/5BAO4C2LWQB6AYORP334LLF37GV6T7ZP/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
