Values/2016 discussion/Transcripts/T

(追記) (追記ここまで)1 == your three values ==

(追記) (追記ここまで)2 STROOPWAFELS

(追記) (追記ここまで)3 === 1 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)4 1: Chose the words that cast a net as wide as possible.

(追記) (追記ここまで)5 Service (to humanity, the public, community; supportive, helpfulness) - in this sense, the leadership WMF provides is not to actually set the agenda, but to work with community/chapters/user groups to support their aspirations and help shepherd them in a collaborative way

(追記) (追記ここまで)6 1: what these aspirations are and what will get priority will be the hard math.

(追記) (追記ここまで)7 Openness (begets transparency, goodwill, accountability, acceptance, inclusiveness, collaboration) - The key to evolving and including new people and initiatives is openness in ideas and direction for the mission.

(追記) (追記ここまで)8 2:

(追記) (追記ここまで)9 Steadfastness (stability, cooperation, endurance) - As volunteers and societal/industry trends come and go, the WMF's main value is the ability to survive and nurture the movement for the long haul.

(追記) (追記ここまで)10 3: We need the things to run; electricity, servers, etc. Have staff to look at the hard things (legal, servers, etc.) that volunteers can’t.

(追記) (追記ここまで)11 Adventurous (analog of being bold) <- not for WMF (haha)

(追記) (追記ここまで)12 Was one of my "movement" values, but not for WMF methinks

(追記) (追記ここまで)13 === 2 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)14 Accessibility – being as inclusive as possible; not trying to exclude anyone

(追記) (追記ここまで)15 2: has a lot of different aspects to it. Involves making it as easy as possible for people to access knowledge (language, formats) and also for sharing knowledge (expertise, specific tools). Insuring people can collaborate in constructive ways without fear for their safety (physical, emotional). The WMF being clear and understandable in public communications. What we’re saying should be accessible. About framing and organizing public discussions to ensure wide participation.

(追記) (追記ここまで)16 Integrity – ensuring our actions are grounded in our mission and values; being truthful and confident in our communications

(追記) (追記ここまで)17 2: When we take action, it’s grounded in our values and our mission. We have reasons for doing what we do. Being honest in our communication. We can explain actions and decisions as much as possible. Leads to consistency in our actions and decisions. Because of that grounding in mission and values should be steering us on a consistent path that we should follow. Should also lead to a strong confident voice in our communications. If we’re making a decision, we should be able to explain why, tied to our mission; not having to apologize for decisions we made.

(追記) (追記ここまで)18 Flexibility – being able to take in new information and potentially change behavior based on that information

(追記) (追記ここまで)19 2: Be able and willing to take in new information and change behavior. We don’t have to have all possible information before starting to do something, ut se whould be open to listening and her new information as things go along and adapt behavior as a result. Also relates to being willing and able to change policies, procedures, beliefs, even if we’ve had them for a long time, based on new information, and how those things relate to mission and values.

(追記) (追記ここまで)20 === 3 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)21 Accountability - being transparent about things, but also accountable

(追記) (追記ここまで)22 3: Not opposite to transparent. When you’re transparent, you’re invisible. But being accountable should mean being visible. Accountability is a better word. We know what we want to do, we can be firm about it.

(追記) (追記ここまで)23 Open-mindedness/Openness - that’s about diversity and access

(追記) (追記ここまで)24 3: Didn’t want to use diversity because it’s overused. It seems that if we’re diverse we can’t include white people. Being open is accepting everyone. Open-minded

(追記) (追記ここまで)25 Inclusiveness / Integrity - being able to accept and defend

(追記) (追記ここまで)26 3: You can open but it doesn’t mean you’re ready to integrate others in what you’re doing. Somebody can come in and go out and that’d be it. I want people not just to go through, but to contribute. We shouldn’t be dealing only with including people, but also including ideas. Everything that we’re doing should be a part of something bigger. We might be doing something today, but we might

(追記) (追記ここまで)27 === 4 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)28 WMF:

(追記) (追記ここまで)29 Networked - to consider itself, in all its actions, not as the ‘do-er of the thing’ but the ‘facilitator of others to do the thing’. To leverage/support a ‘network’ of stakeholders to do their work better (efficient/effective/faster/smarter...) for the benefit of all. (e.g. the same as WMF doesn’t ‘write wikipedia, it helps others to do it better’ - apply that principle to all projects (e.g. education outreach, fundraising...)

(追記) (追記ここまで)30 Related to R.Semler’s ‘80% rule’.

(追記) (追記ここまで)31 4: It’s ingrained in the organization already that the foundation doesn’t write articles; it helps others to write articles. IT’s an enabler (not in the bad sense). Facilitates, supports others to do the thing better than it ever could. That’s the crucial success factor of Wikipedia: to enable others to do the thing better. That’s why wikipedia won. I’d like that value to be incorporated into all things the foundation does. Education/ glam outreach, fundraising: help others do it. Semler: laissez-faire philosophy. The more I can get other people to do things sufficiently well, I have more time and they grow. Network as in empowering others.

(追記) (追記ここまで)32 Effective - Get Shit Done. Doesn’t have to be fast (consultation and consensus-building is an inefficient process), but the results have to be useful - the org shouldn’t exist or be doing things for its own sake/self-perpetuation

(追記) (追記ここまで)33 4: Not existing for its own sake; in many nonprofits they exist in perpetuity because they exist, and they have a big budget because they have a big budget, etc. There needs to be a focus on the goal, on implementable outcomes. Not necessarily the same as efficiency.

(追記) (追記ここまで)34 Global - WMF is not an organisation that is ‘in San Francisco’ but all over the world in terms of staff and its daily impact on the lives of people in the movement. Ask: how would this conversation be different if we were sitting in Reykjavik right now?

(追記) (追記ここまで)35 4: It’s important the foundation considers itself location neutral. SF is an artifact of history. Has changed the way the movement revolves around the foundation. If Jimmy hadn’t been American and living in the US, we may be in Reykjavik right now. Whatever the foundation does shouldn’t be considered the USA organization, and other people in other places can look after themselves (not).

(追記) (追記ここまで)36 [Movement:

(追記) (追記ここまで)37 Global

(追記) (追記ここまで)38 Neutral

(追記) (追記ここまで)39 Free]

(追記) (追記ここまで)40 === 5 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)41 5: I’m very mission focused and that sometimes colors the way I look at things.

(追記) (追記ここまで)42 Supportive - providing the physical, technical and emotional support to those who are working on the mission.

(追記) (追記ここまで)43 5: includes community support, being able to reach out to each other. Remember that the mission is really big, and includes readers, people who reuse pictures from Commons.

(追記) (追記ここまで)44 Disciplined - ensuring that the mission-centric objectives are given priority over "new-shiny", utilizing resources effectively (including human resources).

(追記) (追記ここまで)45 5: Maybe a more direct word, parallel to being focused on the mission, we’re not spending a lot of time doing things that we can’t directly connect to our mission. We have a lot of limitations to our resources so we need to make sure we’re using them well. Also includes stopping doing things that aren’t working well. Especially difficult for organizations and the foundation in particular.

(追記) (追記ここまで)46 Innovative - willing and able to experiment with different ways of accomplishing (parts of) the mission.

(追記) (追記ここまで)47 5: Willing to experiment, try new things, and explore the lessons we learn from that. Example: Wikidata: great leap of faith. We bought into a vision brought to us by members of our community. "If it doesn’t work, we have a way out, but if it does work, we have something exciting". And it really did work into something exciting. A way of reassuring us that we’re willing to try new things as long as we know there’s a point where we evaluate and consider what to do after that. We’re probably innovative in many ways that we don’t recognize (e.g. FDC). Decision making is at the very grassroots. We have other people looking at this and finding it cool. Not many grantmaking organizations where this kind of structure exists. We decided to turn it into something more valuable than just handling money.

(追記) (追記ここまで)48 As a note, I view the mission very broadly so there is a wide range of activities that fit into "mission" that starts at reading or otherwise using the product.

(追記) (追記ここまで)49 === 6 ===

(追記) (追記ここまで)50 Pluralism - pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Pluralism describes difference as the necessary pre-condition, but then also represents how we actually come together to respect and worth together through that difference

(追記) (追記ここまで)51 6: Maybe different words for the same themes. Diversity is indeed overused token word. It’s easy to talk about being global, needed different perspectives at the table, but you need to go beyond that. Need to figure out how to work together through these differences. To me that’s where it gets really important.

(追記) (追記ここまで)52 Collaboration - working together in order to achieve more than we ever could alone (requires transparency, openness, accountability, integrity, etc as pre-conditions).

(追記) (追記ここまで)53 Empowerment (empowering others, note that self-empowerment can easily read as entitlement so that’s not what I mean here) - supporting and sharing knowledge and power with others is why we’re here

(追記) (追記ここまで)54 6: About empowering others. Maybe "support"? It’s the most important word in the foundation’s mission. Often glossed over, lost behind. We’re here to support and share knowledge, and shared power is one of the ways we get there. Really important way of how the foundation can operate within the movement.

(追記) (追記ここまで)55 == why are those good things? do they enable other good things? are they intrinsically good? ==

(追記) (追記ここまで)56 F: Some of the statements you shared were similar; some used different words for similar concepts.

(追記) (追記ここまで)57 [Openness]

(追記) (追記ここまで)58 3: Without being open, we wouldn’t able to reach the mission. We can’t even have the vision about every human being if we’re not open.

(追記) (追記ここまで)59 F: Openness enables inclusivity?

(追記) (追記ここまで)60 3: Maybe a principle?

(追記) (追記ここまで)61 1: It’s not just a good idea, it’s essential to what we do. What we include into Wikipedia, but not just: who we get to get involved. There’s no way our mission can succeed if we’re not open. Otherwise we make an inferior product. If you’re not open, you get a project or a movement that doesn’t represent the breadth of human knowledge.

(追記) (追記ここまで)62 How much openness can you have when you want people to be able to toss around ideas that aren’t fully baked? The operation of the foundation means that people may be subject to heightened scrutiny.

(追記) (追記ここまで)63 F: Openness is necessary for the mission, but it’s also restricting because by opening every aspect, you may be silencing others?

(追記) (追記ここまで)64 1: Those are extreme.

(追記) (追記ここまで)65 5: Inclusiveness, pluralism, similar to openness. Wonder if that’s a value, or just a condition required for the organization to exist. Taking it past the values. Like electricity or servers.

(追記) (追記ここまで)66 6: Openness has always seemed necessary but not sufficient, much like diversity. What I mean, if we take Wikipedia as an example. Lots of open source projects where "anybody can contribute" and yet not everybody does. So that’s the insufficient piece. What do we add to it that makes it sufficient? "Open and inclusive" has a proactive component.

(追記) (追記ここまで)67 6: to 5’s point that this should be so clearly ingrained that they’re necessary preconditions: if they’re not stated as values, where do we agree that they’re important?

(追記) (追記ここまで)68 5: I don’t have a specific thought on that except to say that sometimes we just need to say that things are what they are. WMF hosts series of projects that are open. Maybe part of the mission? Not sure.

(追記) (追記ここまで)69 F: Why does diversity matter? What does it mean to you all? Hearing concern for ensuring that diversity is a priority.

(追記) (追記ここまで)70 4: I’d reframe the open/plural/diverse discussion. Talking about input (different backgrounds, ideas, contents, etc.). It’s a value because it cuts across everything in a way that is a choice. We’re choosing to also be diverse in outputs. Content can be used commercially, data mined, accessible in multiple ways, platforms, languages. Repurposable, not-closable. Some of the bug controversies in the past year revolved about closed inputs, but also closed outputs. Fixed infrastructure independent of who could benefit from it, modify it. Standalone, close output. We fought against that using a general sense of "this isn’t open/plural".

(追記) (追記ここまで)71 4: I think the definition of a useful value is if it can go on the all of every meeting room, and any plan that comes out of a meeting, even the least powerful person in the room can point at that value on the wall and say "this plan doesn’t reflect that". Gravitas to change decisions.

(追記) (追記ここまで)72 F: You brought up a very interesting perspective. We brought values that matter to us personally, but how do they apply in our day to day work.

(追記) (追記ここまで)73 [Integrity]

(追記) (追記ここまで)74 6: One of the important components of integrity is having words and actions match. When there’s a mismatch there, there’s an integrity gap (nods in the room).

(追記) (追記ここまで)75 4: Does integrity gap refer to the ability of the lowest power employee being able to point at the value and being ignored?

(追記) (追記ここまで)76 6: We’ll probably want to bring in accountability in the discussion at this point. If integrity is the match, then accountability is about looking back at what we said, and close the gap to be accountable.

(追記) (追記ここまで)77 F: Accountability is a way that leads to integrity.

(追記) (追記ここまで)78 1: Agree with the mismatch/gap concept. Maybe a values mismatch problem, not necessarily integrity mismatch. For higher level hires and board members, we don’t always have a great onboarding process. People without knowledge of our community: it’s hard to plug them into this environment, even if they’re open minded. There are opportunities (metrics meetings, documentation) but it’s not easy. How do we bring people into our movement if they don’t share them?

(追記) (追記ここまで)79 2: One aspect of integrity is... Actions, decisions, words should reflect the values. Part of the fabric of how things work; it should be fairly easy for people to pick up on that and absorb the values.

(追記) (追記ここまで)80 N: easier to agree on the why instead of the how. People we bring in should share the bedrock values (the why) and then we can discuss / educate on the how (the behavior, guiding principles).

(追記) (追記ここまで)81 1: In recent years, it’s been more difficult to know what’s happening in the movement (and thus see the values in practice) because there’s just so much information. Can’t keep on top of all the discussions unless someone digests them. Speaking as a long-time Wikipedian, I don’t envy someone joining today. I don’t know how new people today do it.

(追記) (追記ここまで)82 5: I wonder... old-school Wikipedian values. We’ve been around for years. I wonder if new people coming in think we have the same values as what we think are the values.

(追記) (追記ここまで)83 4: Like having a control group of newer people

(追記) (追記ここまで)84 5: Maybe? Even if we’re modeling those values, they may not be the same as the ones that newer people are bringing to the organization.

(追記) (追記ここまで)85 1: wikimedia-l mailing list. People using facebook as primary way to interact between community members. Would be unthinkable for many old timers (who’d rather use talk pages, IRC, etc.) People using facebook for getting work done and notifying people to do stuff. Values aren’t exactly the same

(追記) (追記ここまで)86 6: The only thing I would add to that is going back to pluralism. Newer people also bring good ideas. Openness would say "use mailing list". Pluralism is about accepting that some communities use other tools or channels like facebook to communicate.

(追記) (追記ここまで)87 4: Open to new communities and platforms. ...

(追記) (追記ここまで)88 2: openness maybe not a value in itself, but rather a means to an end. Clash between openness and . Can’t leave behind humans for whom open tools are too complex. As a result it harms pluralism. You’re limiting who can be involved, if you’re too strict on using an open platform. Pluralism is the value behind openness. Also other limitations around accessibility, but balancing these different things.

(追記) (追記ここまで)89 F: Extremely open would hurt inclusivity. Goes back to openness yes, but with something else (inclusive, plural).

(追記) (追記ここまで)90 [effectiveness]

(追記) (追記ここまで)91 4: Not existing for its own sake. Foundation exists to serve rather than to exist. Tied to being networked. Being effective doesn’t necessarily mean doing it fastest being you’re the best, it’s about getting the best outcome. The best we have found at writing an encyclopedia: distributed system. Extrapolate from the way we’ve learned is the most effective at writing wikipedia, means to enable others to work together to be effective all together. Controlling centrally might be more efficient but we’ve learned that doesn’t work for WP, the same is true for the organisation itself.

(追記) (追記ここまで)92 Be disciplined; serve.

(追記) (追記ここまで)93 best outcome, perhaps any outcome, and the best way we have been effective in writing an encyclopedia - is to be networked

(追記) (追記ここまで)94 3: For me, effectiveness still means that you have limited resources, and it includes my concept of accountability. You have these resources, this mission, and use the resources to get there. Try, fail, learn. In trying to understand that we have limited resources. Being accountable. Even the words we’re using for values are different but interlinked. Having common ground to talk and understand what people mean. People fight because sometimes they don’t understand they’re saying the same thing. They need meta-discourse.

(追記) (追記ここまで)95 6: It seems like we’ve got a couple of clusters around poles. Some values are around accountability, steadfastness, ... and then there’s innovation and flexibility. What is the interplay if they are both core values? Discipline and innovation? Innovation on its own can be a very dangerous thing, as is only focusing on what we know we’re effective at. Thinking of values as pairs.

(追記) (追記ここまで)96 F: There may be values that could contradict each other, or oppose one another, but we can prioritize differently.

(追記) (追記ここまで)97 2: Interesting because values that seem in opposition keeps you from being too far in one direction. Keeps you from concentrating too much on safety and not being innovative, for example.

(追記) (追記ここまで)98 F: Going back to being "radically" innovative, or "radically" efficient.

(追記) (追記ここまで)99 [steadfastness]

(追記) (追記ここまで)100 5: Similar to discipline. Service work, structural support, core functions taken care of consistently. Important to our focus. We chose such different words that seem to mean the same thing.

(追記) (追記ここまで)101 1: longevity and the "long game".

(追記) (追記ここまで)102 N: Also "perpetuity" in the mission.

(追記) (追記ここまで)103 1: Traditional definition of government. Endowment, long term planning, are really important to do with some kind of organization. Community awesome at smuchn, but not this. Volunteers struggle with the long game - endowment, servers, etc. are important to do with long term support at an organisational level, which is why it needs to be "baked in" from the values of the wmf.

(追記) (追記ここまで)104 We’re supposed to reach out to new places, new readers, but without abandoning people who are already here. No

(追記) (追記ここまで)105 I don’t like the vision statement. We are not actually trying to reach every single human being. We are not trying to build schools, we don’t even fund other people to do that. We shouldn’t try, but it is in the vision statement. We are also not trying to collect the sum of all knowledge; we are trying to collect the sum of all public, notable knowledge. What about indigenous knowledge? That is not traditionally shared. This vision is very western, very libertarian. Our vision statement is more of a practical implementation of collecting the collective knowledge

(追記) (追記ここまで)106 collating the collection of knowledge and making it available to people, not pushing aggressively to people. Love enlightenment philosophy of classification but there are flaws in it. We're not the be all and end all of human knowledge. "All the knowledge" includes facebook, SSNs.

(追記) (追記ここまで)107 5: I think sometimes we get confused. It's not the same to share information and to share educational content. We have running jokes about certain images on Commons, and at what point does it stop being educational. SSNs aren't educational content. Sometimes we fail to reinforce that part of our mission statement.

(追記) (追記ここまで)108 2: Multiple organizations can share the same vision and work toward them with different missions. Vision works well at painting an inspirational picture.

(追記) (追記ここまで)109 6: Educational content: I wonder; if we wanted to refocus on that. What kind of values would we need concretely to focus on and espouse? What would get us there?

(追記) (追記ここまで)110 5: It’s a good question.

(追記) (追記ここまで)111 6: Maybe we all need more time to think about this. For me educational content comes back to empowerment. Releasing SSNs doesn’t empower anyone.

(追記) (追記ここまで)112 == feedback on the session ==

(追記) (追記ここまで)113 How did it go? What did you like? What should be improved?

(追記) (追記ここまで)114 5: Surprises me: Didn’t look at the existing values until a minute ago. What we talked about isn’t reflected on that page. Missed some of those. Maybe it’s so fundamental to who we are that it’s just part of who we are.

(追記) (追記ここまで)115 2: question about the process, history of values.