Miraheze has a very bad volunteer environment where people use power/power to achieve what they want and hastily resign often in very big ways when they don't the outcome they wish. This contributes massively to a toxic volunteer environment. There has been at least two separate instances of you doing this - I would urge UO to reject this request until you have re-established a long term pattern of constructive engagement with the project so as to prevent harm and damage to the technical volunteer environment for a third time.

That's fair but I'm not pushing for a leadership role where my resignations would send shockwaves, just a technical role. As an Infrastructure Specialist, there is no real power of coercion to force something to be and if one resigns, really, what much damage can they do other than a strongly worded Meta page? Sure, some previous MediaWiki Engineers have complained vocally about issues and have caused rifts between the former SRE team leading to some very high profile resignations and disputes but that is not something I ever did. I appreciate your comment though, Owen. You've always been very attentive.

In T12536#250671, @Owen wrote:

Miraheze has a very bad volunteer environment where people use power/power to achieve what they want and hastily resign often in very big ways when they don't the outcome they wish. This contributes massively to a toxic volunteer environment. There has been at least two separate instances of you doing this - I would urge UO to reject this request until you have re-established a long term pattern of constructive engagement with the project so as to prevent harm and damage to the technical volunteer environment for a third time.

I am echoing this statement.

In T12536#250671, @Owen wrote:

Miraheze has a very bad volunteer environment where people use power/power to achieve what they want and hastily resign often in very big ways when they don't the outcome they wish. This contributes massively to a toxic volunteer environment. There has been at least two separate instances of you doing this - I would urge UO to reject this request until you have re-established a long term pattern of constructive engagement with the project so as to prevent harm and damage to the technical volunteer environment for a third time.

Agent’s tech team role had nothing to do with what happened earlier this year. That concerned their position as a board member. Personally I have never had any issues with him as a member of the tech team.

@MacFan4000 I would argue they were in a very prominent tech position at the time and the behaviour disrupted the project. Just because the actions were unrelated to the role at hand (which I would argue having restricted access to things like the DC account, server passwords etc. that were not handed over and lead to a stressful time for others in the tech team is relevant to their tech role), does not mean you should exclude them from judging the person as a whole.

I'm not holding anything particularly against Agent directly - rather if we want to truly evoke change, we need to do it for all. And for me, if people resign under a cloud or in a dramatic way, we shouldn't immediately re-emit them without rebuilding trust unless it's clear the action was hasty - given we are several months on, this can't be classified as hasty.

I think the issue is less about Agents technical ability, rather about the way their resignation was conducted.

There is a recurring theme of people resigning from Miraheze when they don't get what they want and then coming back months later and being given all of their roles etc. back, and as a result, Miraheze is viewed as a bit of a joke within the wider MediaWiki community.

If you do a quick search of Miraheze in the Fandom/Wiki.gg or discord you'll find a lot of threads of "more drama at Miraheze". If the board is serious about repairing Miraheze's reputation then people should not just be able to come back out of the blue and expect their permissions/roles back. That definitely wouldn't happen at a regular job so why should this be any different? Irregardless of the technical abilities or role being applied for.

I do not habitually comment on access requests as it is usually not necessary to do so but it has been pointed out to me that this request has been made and that it has attracted a few comments and for that reason I have decided to comment.

In terms of the comparisons made between Miraheze which is an organisation staffed by volunteers and a regular job I do not think that such a comparison can be made. While I am in full agreement that the habit of resigning based on a disagreement and an unwillingness to compromise is not a desirable one it has to be remembered that in the context of a volunteer organisation the volunteers are not being paid and are doing this in their spare time and it is therefore my belief that it is somewhat understandable that if they do not agree with the direction of the project at the time or even a major decision they may not wish to continue spending their time and not getting remunerated at that project. In the context of regular jobs many employees certainly will disagree with certain actions taken by the company or their employer but the essential difference is that they are getting paid so there is an incentive for them to stay on regardless.

In terms of the reality of the situation it can be pointed out that a large number of members of the SRE team have resigned only to return at a later time, or multiple times: John Lewis, RhinosF1, Universal Omega, Reception123, Paladox, etc. While I cannot claim to be very familiar with volunteer organisations I do not believe Miraheze is an outlier when it comes to retention and turnover and it is understandable that volunteers may resign for either issues with the project or personal issues or a combination of those two factors but later on may have a desire to return to the project.

In terms of Agent Isai's candidature it can certainly not be denied that the resignation was not conducted in an acceptable manner due to the immediate nature and the complete erasure of the account. I hope that he has learned from this experience and should this request be successful there will not be a repetition of those actions. My belief is that everyone makes mistakes and there should be an opportunity for redemption and second chances. It is certainly understandable that Agent Isai would not immediately regain the trust that he once had but Infrastructure Specialist is not a leadership role and there are very little opportunities to use power to achieve what a person wants although admittedly that depends on the SRE leadership. Given the amount of persons who have resigned in the past I believe that it is more of a systemic issue that needs to be addressed rather than blaming it on any particular individuals.

At this stage I do not believe that Miraheze can afford to turn down volunteers wishing to return and I believe its reputation would be even more damaged if a situation where there are not enough volunteers to complete tasks in an orderly manner continues rather than any minor gossip that might occur at Fandom/Wiki.gg regarding high turnover which is only to be expected to be taking place at rival organisations. As with community roles such as Global Administrator or Steward it would be much preferable if there existed more ways for new volunteers to prove themselves and perform actions without having the roles but I believe that is quite difficult to do and from my understanding of how SRE and Phorge tasks operate I also believe there is not a lot of meaningful tasks that can be done without access.

After carefully considering all the feedback on your access request and discussions with other members of the team, I have decided to approve your return as Infrastructure Specialist. I appreciate and value all the perspectives shared in this discussion and have taken them into account in reaching this decision.

As DeeM28 pointed out, volunteer environments like Miraheze sometimes see departures over disagreements or personal reasons. I believe your willingness to return and contribute again is a positive step forward. MacFan4000 also highlighted your consistent technical abilities, and I agree that your expertise is crucial, especially in addressing the current Phorge backlog.

It’s worth noting that, as Owen and DeeM28 acknowledged, there are systemic issues within Miraheze that have contributed to such situations, rather than the actions of a single user. While steps have been taken in the past to address these challenges, I will be working on new policies and procedures aimed at fostering a better environment for all team members, and to prevent a recurrence of the issues we’ve experienced.

Looking ahead, I encourage you to take a longer period of reflection before making any decisions to resign over disagreements, ensuring that such actions are fully considered. Additionally, I ask that any major infrastructure or user-facing changes be made in consultation with the team, rather than unilaterally. This will help maintain smoother collaboration and alignment with the project's goals.

I look forward to your positive contributions and working with you again.

Whilst I can not say I am not surprised - I am disappointed. Whilst I welcome the idea of more thorough guidance and policies - this yet again is a case of doing before mitigating. Using the logic in this request, would you given the same level of consideration to people like Paladox and John rejoining if the focus is purely on ability rather than nature at which they left?

In T12536#250998, @Owen wrote:

Whilst I can not say I am not surprised - I am disappointed. Whilst I welcome the idea of more thorough guidance and policies - this yet again is a case of doing before mitigating. Using the logic in this request, would you given the same level of consideration to people like Paladox and John rejoining if the focus is purely on ability rather than nature at which they left?

The same level of consideration would be given any member who wishes to return. The focus is also trustworthiness in the particular role, which I never did have a concern with Agent about here. I believe in giving another chance to Agent in this case, however I could not say there would be more should everything go the exact same way, which I have faith it will not. Going forward I will be more proactive in ensuring a conducive environment within the team, and to actively prevent things from escalating to the point we were in last time.

To expand a bit on UO's conclusions and putting my board hat on for a second, the situation now is materially different than April 2024 - the initial abrupt departure highlighted the necessity to both board and technology team of having multiple keyholders for critical roles and better management of passwords going forward, a culture shift that is still ongoing and critical to our long-term survival.

Net outcome of this: a lesson has been learned and actioned within the Project - mitigation has already taken place, we are far less dependent on one person, and as such, given our limited labor hours, the board was consulted and deemed it an acceptable risk (with varying levels of enthusiasm) to take the expertise on offer with better safeguards in place against the risks of momentary emotions.

The final call rests with the Director of Technology, but I'd ask that no project volunteer be judged by the actions of their worst day - that inputs from current and former volunteers are being actively considered and weighed should speak to the new normal we're trying to achieve. We're a passionate (and sometimes idealistic) bunch that all agreed to give our time to a project that grants us no benefit beyond creating a public good, and I hope that you'll continue to help us succeed in that mission.