Of course first I read our article Chief creative officer. The list of examples there is heavy on entertainment, whereas I'd expect a more typical corporate title to be Chief communications officer. So this sends a subtle message; is it intentional? Is WP an entertainment company? But this also stood out: the people in the CCO role are known heavyweights and even figureheads for a particular set of intellectual property – for example John Lasseter for Pixar and Joe Quesada for Marvel. In these two examples they are creators of a great deal of the company's property in their own right. The recent appointee at WMF is an unknown to me and I spend, ahem, a lot of time here. So I'd like to know more about what that's all about. I'd also like to hear where the WP content contributors stand in their vision of stakeholder groups. Is the chief creative officer interested in hearing from the creators? I'm here. Hello? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my experience that tech-centric nonprofits like this tend to let people create their own job titles; it's one of the perqs, or rather one of the bits of leeway for doing nonprofit work at nonprofit salaries when people could be making more money in the commercial sector. As long as the job title makes some kind of sense, no one should get too bent out of shape about it. "Chief communications office" is a corporate title, and not all that often found in nonprofits. ("Communications director" is the more frequent NGO equivalent; I've had both titles in my time, for the same work, and the only real difference was that one of the nonprofits I worked for was led by someone who really liked corporate-ish titles and the other by someone who let us design our own business cards, as long as the work got done.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to News and notes