Dear friends and colleagues,

I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
Wikimedia Foundation.

Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a
Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.

This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really
incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.

I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.

Much love,
Siko

Monday: departure of Luis Villa, director CE, announced.
Tuesday: Anna Koval, Manager of Wikipedia Education Program, is leaving
Thursday: Siko Bouterse, Director of Resources, follows:

I've put the intriguing part in bold. Is she implicitly saying the WMF lacks transparency, integrity, community?
And is there something seriously wrong in the CE department?

Any bets on who will be next to leave the department?

The rot is accelerating.

If she is saying that I would agree. It sounds like something happened recently at the WMF.

Yep, and now we know what: they were preparing the updated harassment survey report. Instead of correcting the percentages (of respondents who had experienced each type of harassment), they removed them so they didn't have to admit their mistake. And given the resignation of Luis Villa, the decision must have come from the top.

Don't jump to conclusions. For all we know, Luis Villa got a job somewhere else where he was in a position to offer subordinate positions to some of his friends, and so he did.

Admittedly, this seems unlikely, but it's been known to happen.

Can anyone name one person who has been able to recover and get a better job after leaving the WMF?

Don't jump to conclusions. For all we know, Luis Villa got a job somewhere else where he was in a position to offer subordinate positions to some of his friends, and so he did.

Admittedly, this seems unlikely, but it's been known to happen.

Mike Godwin?

The comment by Siko Bouterse doesn't exactly suggest that she's leaving because she found another job.
(Anna Koval's departure is likely not related, I admit)

They had the data to correct the results, instead they give us two pages of useless averages. This is an exercise in damage control, and they do it because they expect to get away with it. Some people think the survey data is flawed anyway (my mistake, first claiming it was a technical error causing wrong input), others think that the criticism is about the methodology, flaws in design, selection bias etc.. (and the reactions by non-wikipediocracy editors seem to support that), and few people seem to care.
I don't expect much reaction from the community, but it could be a nice case for statisticians or science journalists. I'll write a summary tomorrow or Monday, and see if someone is interested. Regina Nuzzo would be ideal...

Mike Godwin?

Don't jump to conclusions. For all we know, Luis Villa got a job somewhere else where he was in a position to offer subordinate positions to some of his friends, and so he did.

Admittedly, this seems unlikely, but it's been known to happen.

As a WO thread about the failed careers of former WMF staffers grows longer, the probability of Mike Godwin being mentioned as the only exception approaches 1.

Define "better job" in his case, please?

According to the thread, Luis has no job to go to and has a baby on the way in May. That doesn't exactly suggest that this was a voluntary departure does it?

Any proper job not involving defence of the WMF. "Godwin was named a member of the Student Press Law Center Board of Directors in January 2009 and of the Open Source Initiative Board of Directors in March 2011."

The baby might be the reason.
"We've got some money saved, why don't you take a break between jobs while we have the baby?"

3 months in advance? Finding a job must be really easy in the US if that is the case? I'm not sure it would be safe to risk it in the UK.

I make enough money that my wife took off several years to raise our last child. What if Luis's spouse is as fortunate as I was?

Yep, and now we know what: they were preparing the updated harassment survey report. Instead of correcting the percentages (of respondents who had experienced each type of harassment), they removed them so they didn't have to admit their mistake. And given the resignation of Luis Villa, the decision must have come from the top.

As a WO thread about the failed careers of former WMF staffers grows longer, the probability of Mike Godwin being mentioned as the only exception approaches 1.

Can anyone name one person who has been able to recover and get a better job after leaving the WMF?

Zack Exley is now a senior advisor to Bernie Sanders.

Zack Exley is now a senior advisor to Bernie Sanders.

Zack_Exley (T-H-L)

Patricio, can you add more details here please?

The engagement survey in November showed very, very low support for the
Executive Director. I'm not sure what "organizational facilitator analysis"
is, but if it's related to the management coaching for Lila, there are some
unanswered emails on the staff list which are very discouraging. I can
forward them to you if you are unaware.

As a longtime part of Wikimedia's community and staff, I would really
appreciate some clear answers on what's going on and why we're losing more
and more longtime community and staff members while an ED who needs
management coaching is still in place.

Brion is one of the few remaining from the "shoestring era", so a lot of institutional memory will go with him.

Not to wish him ill, but good riddance to that... RfB

I have to agree with Tim here. I don't know Brion but, until Lila arrived, nobody here (and few editors at en.Wikipedia) had anything but contempt for the WMF technical team. The tech team's incompetence and lack of sense, and their utter disdain for the community was legendary and well-attested. Under Lila, many of those at the root of these problems have been moved on, or have chosen to move on, and respectful engagement with the community has been imposed on the remaining staff.

I don't know what's at the bottom of the staff discontent with Lila, and clearly there is room for improvement there, but she's presided over the departure of a lot of people who should have departed a long time ago, and that's going to make for a bit of chaos and resentment and maybe even concern among the remaining staff.

As for the bigger question - her competency - I wholeheartedly approve of the direction she's taking the WMF in. Consider this:

[*]The Community Consultation was particularly effective in highlighting the needs and wants of our readers, as well as those of the editing community, and this has informed the ongoing strategy design process - a process that has deep community input. That strategy, in turn, informs funding decisions.
[*]The Community Resources Team surveyed the community and discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea Lab Campaign accordingly.
[*]The WMF have accepted the FDC's proposal that the WMF submit to the same reporting standard they expect of their chapters.

Lila could and should have been more candid about the Knowledge Engine project as the idea was evolving, and I hope she's learned from that, but under her the WMF gives a shit about and is responsive to its volunteers and readers. It would be a grave mistake, in my opinion, for the editing community to pile on here. You should be celebrating her and supporting her ... unless you really do want a return to the era of Eric Moeller's and Jorm's "This is what we designed for you and you're gonna take it."

[Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

Ori Livneh ori at wikimedia.org
Thu Feb 18 18:33:55 UTC 2016
Previous message: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Next message: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> There is way too much blaming/bashing/sour expectations
> working both ways - we almost forget how unique we are, irrespective of
> many slips and avoidable failures we make (and WMF is definitely leading
> here, too!
>

No, we're not. My peers in the Technology department work incredibly hard
to provide value for readers and editors, and we have very good results to
show for it. Less than two years ago it took an average of six seconds to
save an edit to an article; it is about one second now. (MediaWiki
deployments are currently halted over a 200-300ms regression!). Page load
times improved by 30-40% in the past year, which earned us plaudits in the
press and in professional circles. The analytics team figured out how to
count unique devices without compromising user anonimity and privacy and
rolled out a robust public API for page view data. The research team is in
the process of collecting feedback from readers and compiling the first
comprehensive picture of what brings readers to the projects. The TechOps
team made Wikipedia one of the first major internet properties to go
HTTPS-only, slashed latency for users in many parts of the world by
provisioning a cache pop on the Pacific Coast of the United States, and is
currently gearing up for a comprehensive test of our failover capabilities,
which is to happen this Spring.

That's just the activity happening immediately around me in the org, and
says nothing of engineering accomplishments like the Android app being
featured on the Play store in 93 countries and having a higher user rating
than Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Netflix, Snapchat, Google Photos, etc. Or
the 56,669 articles that have been created using the Content Translation
tool.

This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top.
If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people
from Engineering won't be long now. Our initial astonishment at the Board's
unwillingness to acknowledge and address this dysfunction is wearing off.
The slips and failures are not generalized and diffuse. They are local and
specific, and their location has been indicated to you repeatedly.

Ori Livneh
Principal Software Engineer

Ben Creasy ben at bencreasy.com
Fri Feb 19 06:30:25 UTC 2016
Previous message: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Next message: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at ...> writes:
> I know of people who are overwhelmed with negativity on the list. I myself
> feel it, too, although I am determined not to reduce my participation or
> liaising with the communities.

The negativity is not going to magically go away, especially not when we start
seeing more people leave as we're being warned about right here. There is a
reason that resignations are a popular response to scandal: without them, the
negativity can continue for a long, long time.

Also, this is not a good time for smiley faces. I can't imagine that it feels
empathetic to staff members who are feeling let down right now.

> Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at ...> writes:
> I think that what is useful in such times is being precise: for instance,
> there was a voiced demand (which I support and consider reasonable) to have
> the Knowledge Engine explained. I really like the fact that there is an FAQ
> prepared and that there are answers posted. This is a constructive method
> of addressing a particular problem (I'm referring to the approach, not to
> the content, obviously, since it is a new page). I think we need precision
> in defining problems, and also precision in proposing constructive
> solutions, that's all.

OK, in terms of problems, staff are saying that it's Lila. Do you want them to
be more specific in a public mailing list about how and where she has
disappointed them? That seems like an awkward situation for Lila. I think the
community has made it clear that we are disappointed about the transparency with
regard to the Knight Foundation, continuing up to a disappointing blog post.
Note that the WMF declined to disclose the grant until Andreas Kolbe emailed
the grant officer John Brackens who said that revealing grant documents is
entirely up to the grantee (ie, WMF). Donor privacy was never an issue. People
are entitled to have a limit at which point they say "enough is enough". That
limit may be different than yours, but it's clear that it has been reached
for many people.

Now, in terms of constructive solutions: it takes 2 board members to call a
special meeting, with a minimum 2 days notice. Have you tried? I suspect that
Maria might second you. If you cannot find a second, please let us know.

At that special meeting, you can make a motion to address the issues. I know
how I would word the motion, and I don't think I need to spell it out for you.
But maybe you have innovative ideas. The community should see the breakdown of
the votes.

I noticed in a later post you pointed towards the Human Resources Committee as
tackling the problem. This committee is composed of Jimbo, Patricio, and Guy
Kawasaki. So: the guy who called James, the one who was trying to help staff, a
"fucking liar" (if I recall correctly), the Chair of the board who removed the
staff's friend, and who can be held most directly responsible for the board's
lack of transparency and actions as the elected leader of the board, and Guy,
who I understand is quite influential in the board room, but whose last
communication to us was to express support for Arnnon without knowing how to
sign his wiki username. That does not sound like a constructive way forward. I
really wish I didn't have to point out these negative facts, as I have no
interest in hurting anyone's feelings. I keep holding off from posting, hoping
that better news will come.

When I first heard about the removal of James, the quote that ran through my
mind, which I expressed to Sam Klein in a phone call, was from Warren Buffett:
"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you t
hink about that, you'll do things differently".

Given that they can't seem to kill Flow, VisualEdsel still has tons of "won't fix" bugs around things that people want and the most recent bullshit with Tragic: The Gather and the "Little Search Engine That Couldn't", I'm having a hard time seeing how this is better than the bad, old days except for some of the players...

If I'd ever given the WMF a dime, I'd be furious with their utter incompetence and the wasting of my damn dime.

...and respectful engagement with the community has been imposed on the remaining staff.

Is that what you call what we've been witnessing the past few months?

Is that what you call what we've been witnessing the past few months?

...and respectful engagement with the community has been imposed on the remaining [technical] staff.

But, regarding her approach to the volunteers and the readers, Lila's been a vast improvement over Sue's and Eric's "Take that" approach. If she doesn't survive this crisis, I hope the institutionalised respect for and responsiveness to the readers and writers does survive.

I don't have regrets about leaving -- I was going to stick around for another 1-2 years at most; I was never cut out to be a lifer, and I left voluntarily because it was clear things were going to just continue to deteriorate at the top. But if some of the key folks in engineering left, that would really really suck. You don't want that to happen, trust me. These are good, super-talented people, and the institutional/technical memory that would leave with them would set the org back severely.

From the other thread, the WMF rots from the head down.

As long as Jimmy Wales has a 'dictator for life' lock on the board and is able to bring on squealing sycophants like Guy Kawasaki, so unaware that he doesn't know how to sign his edits on wikipedia, then nothing will happen.

Wikipedians, if you want real and lasting change, you're going to need to put in a real board full of members who actually have relevant board experience and not thinly resumed wannabe rock stars like Jimmy, Guy and Arnnon.

I'm not sure that Lila is the right fit for ED, but I can tell you that the Sue/Mo:leMan 'axis of incompetence' wasn't it and that your board of trustees is full of fools.

If you really want this wikipedia thing to work, you need to root out Jimmy and his quislings first.

From the other thread, the WMF rots from the head down.

As long as Jimmy Wales has a 'dictator for life' lock on the board and is able to bring on squealing sycophants like Guy Kawasaki, so unaware that he doesn't know how to sign his edits on wikipedia, then nothing will happen.

Wikipedians, if you want real and lasting change, you're going to need to put in a real board full of members who actually have relevant board experience and not thinly resumed wannabe rock stars like Jimmy, Guy and Arnnon.

I'm not sure that Lila is the right fit for ED, but I can tell you that the Sue/Mo:leMan 'axis of incompetence' wasn't it and that your board of trustees is full of fools.

If you really want this wikipedia thing to work, you need to root out Jimmy and his quislings first.

The basic problem is that there is no way to hold the Board to account. There is no shareholders' meeding. The election of "community representatives" ought to have been some help, but James Heilman shows that in practice it has little effect. If you have a great leader like Richard Branson, this sort of system can work. Jimbo knows him; he really needs to get some advice from him.

I am not greatly concerned about the "knowledge engine" kerfuffle -- it seems like the sort of confusion and infighting that happens in every organization. And I certainly disagree with people who think that improvements in (internal) search are not needed, or that improvements to the efficiency of the servers are not important. But there are two issues that badly need to be addressed by the BoT:

1. No adequate explanation has yet been given for the dismissal of James Heilman from the board. I can think of reasons why giving a full explanation might be problematic, but the fact remains that an elected community representative was removed without a clear rationale. That's a situation where a backlash is inevitable, and probably will continue until a better explanation is given.

2. Even more important, there are strong indications that the leadership of the WMF has lost the confidence of a substantial part of the staff. There are always going to be malcontents, but this seems to go well beyond the level that might be expected. I hope that the BoT is paying attention, and I hope that it will intervene if the situation continues to deteriorate.

Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, this issue has the board's full attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say much in detail, so I'll just speak broadly. It is my belief that we need to be a lot better about hiring at the top levels. We've had too many C-level positions vacant for too long, and also situations in the past with C-level positions where the person in the role wasn't a great fit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just staff and former staff? Huh. You must be reading wikimedia-that-doesn't-include-liam-fae-former-board-members-or-almost-anyone-else-l. What's it like there?

To Risker's point; "don't beat up on people who have less information than you" is a good principle.

But so is "don't call people incompetent when the alternative is that you're missing something".

Speaking as both a volunteer and staff, Anthony, I have found your attitude in this conversation and others on the subject to be deeply unproductive. It would be good if you spent more time asking questions and less time dismissing people's concerns.

The board should stand by Lila. She's done the hard stuff. Now let her run the team. After the recent stupidity on wikimedia-l, Facebook and elsewhere, I expect the staff who ran off at the mouth will resign when the realise she's staying (they'd better) but the WMF will survive, and then thrive.

You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.