Response [Moved] Labor union?

Hi Quim, I can't see whether you say prefer responses to your talk page comments where made or here, so I'm moving the discussion here: @Qgil-WMF: In your personal opinion, would rank-and-file Wikimedia Foundation employees benefit from a labor union so they would have recourse when ordered to take indefensible positions by C-suite management? If you feel uncomfortable answering this question, please let me know, and I will endeavor to contact you to discuss it off-wiki. EllenCT (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(Moved from Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project -- see diff) Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: since you ask about my personal opinion, I feel very comfortable telling you that I am a member of a union and I believe everyone of working age should be a member of one. After many years working at the Foundation, there hasn't been a single instance where I have felt I should discuss any situation with my union. Quite the opposite, I wish workers everywhere would be treated with the HR standards that the Foundation follows. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: am I correct in interpreting your answer to mean you feel that the rank-and-file employees who are required by C-suite management to be the public faces of their unpopular decisions should have the same protection you do, but your feeling is not strong enough to ask your union to help organize those of your colleagues who lack such advantages? EllenCT (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@EllenCT: No, you are not correct. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the extent of the moral obligation you feel to see that your colleagues on the rank-and-file attain the protections you enjoy? EllenCT (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Concerned by near silence


I thought I'd drop a line here since I'm being extremely concerned by the near-silence from the WMF team members regarding the branding project. The principal discussion page would be Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project, as well as a more focused page at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Naming convention proposals. There was also the RfC on the matter, which has also had a surge in comments and queries post the survey announcements.

The number of open queries, as well as some quite resounding consensus on several concerns, are growing, daily, and with no replies and genuine engagement from WMF staff.

Given the shortness of the survey length, and the potential need to make changes, response can't wait.

I urge you to encourage every WMF employee (as well as the surprisingly expensive consultants, if still involved) to both discuss the community's concerns internally and then to start providing genuine engagement by the end of the 19th. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nosebagbear, thank you for reaching out. Yes, there is a wave of feedback to be addressed in the pages you mention and several more that we are watching. Discuss the community's concerns internally is exactly what we are doing, intensively and extensively. Instead of trying to answer every single comment, we aim to address the common and underlying concerns in a clear and comprehensive way. This takes coordination and time. Today I expect us to get back to bringing answers and engaging genuinely, just as we have done regularly throughout this project. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your warnings to User:Sänger

I don't believe that the messages you're giving Sänger on his talk page are helpful to the movement. Members of the foundation staff might be finding his advice and criticisms (for example, that ZMcCune needs to communicate more on-wiki) hard to take. Being criticized for your work might be uncomfortable, but it's far from uncivil. I think it's fair to say that of all of us, Sänger best predicted the community reaction to the branding proposals. If ZMcCune had addressed these comments months ago, perhaps the branding project would have gone down a more productive path (one that didn't attempt to usurp the Wikipedia name).

I'd suggest next time that a member of the Foundation staff is made uncomfortable by a message from Sänger, you ask them if it's his behavior that makes them uncomfortable, or if it's simply because he is giving them advice they don't want to take. I'd also suggest considering if, by choosing to post on his talk page rather than working with staff members, you are enabling uncivil behavior by members of the WMF staff, and leading to the continued fracturing of trust between the community and Foundation. TomDotGov (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: My messages to Sänger on his Talk page are all about Meta:Civility and only about that. I am following the process indicated by the Meta policy when someone feels that someone else is incurring in incivility or personal attacks. This has nothing to do with being criticized about our work, something that e.g. you do regularly from this anonymous account and I have never reported as uncivil. I fail to see the logic according to which my reports about uncivil behavior of one volunteer would enable uncivil behavior by Foundation staff. If you see uncivil behavior from a Foundation staff member, please report it. I also fail to see the connection between reminding a reincident contributor about Meta:Civility and fracturing trust. I am not reporting indiscriminately volunteers criticising the Foundation. I am explaining to a single user why I think he is repeatedly breaching a Meta policy on civility, on his Talk page. Every time I come back with another comment I genuinely think that perhaps this time will be the last one. So far I have been wrong. I really don't enjoy doing this, but not doing anything feels wrong. I strongly believe incivility is not helpful to the movement. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Das gesamte Vorgehen der UmbenennenwollerInnen ist das Gegenteil von Meta:Civility, indem andauernd die Community komplett ignoriert wird, deren eindeutige Willensbekundungen umgedeutet werden, um dem persönlichen POV zu genügen, und ohne Rücksicht auf die Community stur und unbeeindruckt das eigentlich lange schon abgelehnte Vorhaben einfach weiter durchgezogen wird. Da können die PDF und Beiträge noch so höflich formuliert sein, der Inhalt ist Aggression pur. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey Data Delay

Hi there,

I just thought I'd repeat a query raised on the main brand project page, as to why the anonymised survey data isn't set to be released until after the Board has made a final decision?

Given the conceded misuse of statistical data earlier in the process, and repeat similar concerns from the August meeting, this feels like a terrible, terrible, idea. If a decision gets made and then interpretations of the data get contested it's going to going to be absolutely chaotic.

I implore you to release it at least 2 weeks ahead of the meeting, and further implore you to state what you feel the data shows, so that at least the basis over which people are disagreeing can be agreed.

Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Hi, just a note to say that the Brand team has seen this comment. This topic is being discussed at Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project. Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sunday November 29 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting

Take flight with us.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, and October SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including the recent proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, this month we are meeting on Sunday November 29, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

(Note that the UTC times of and are the same as before, although a number of places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Qgil-WMF/Archives/2020".