Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  View All
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
>

So can I see these conferings?

--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Patricio,

Jimmy Wales stated that the Board would work with James to provide a
statement. Could you please make clear if the final statement issued is
something he agreed to?
On Jan 1, 2016 1:15 AM, "geni" <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy
> with
> > a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> > information will be available once the Board has had a chance to confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> >
>
> So can I see these conferings?
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
I'd like to comment on what Ryan has written about the responsibility of WMF to the community. Many of us aren't just anonymous editors of an encyclopedia - we also play a rather different role in the Wikimedia movement, spreading word about our goals and publicly raising awareness about Wikipedia. Usually, having a strong and capable Foundation behind our backs is an enormous advantage for many reasons and we are happy to be sharing the "Wikimedia" brand with it. In fact, I am so convinced of the importance of our movement that I voluntarily devote my whole free time working for it. For this reason, I am also extremely sensitive to actions which may harm the good name of the broader Wikimedia movement - such as, in this case, a lack of transparency in organizational governance, which opens doors to speculations. 
 
 
************************
Vojtěch Dostál
Wikimedia Czech Republic
 
 
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com <http://redir.netcentrum.cz/?noaudit&url=https%3A%2F%2Flists%2Ewikimedia%2Eorg%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwikimedia%2Dl>>wrote:> Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause, > or not!? > If they'd like to. But if not, no. So people who keep demanding things,after what I personally believe between Jimmy's comment and others, we canput a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.We edit a website. This may surprise a lot of people, but that entitlesyou to nothing outside of that domain. It doesn't get you a discount atMcDonalds, it doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won'tget you your next job. Yes - our position as volunteers is important (ifnot critical) to the Foundation and its overall message. But the so called"community" needs to realize their boundaries.People who keep demanding such things (such as a detailed report of whathappened) are showi
ng a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure- and perhaps other things. Just my two cents, since everybody else ispiling on in opposition.-- RyanUser:Rjd0060
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
<patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:

> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee>
> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> steps.

There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
"community nominated".

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk




--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
><patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
>> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
>> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee>
>> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
>> steps.
>
> There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> "community nominated".

Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida statutes it seems)
that they were "community elected".

Saper


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

Joe

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 at 21:11 Marcin Cieslak <saper@saper.info> wrote:

> On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> ><patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
> >> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
> >> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee
> >
> >> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> >> steps.
> >
> > There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> > this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> > by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> > "community nominated".
>
> Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida
> statutes it seems)
> that they were "community elected".
>
> Saper
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 1 Jan 2016 21:56, "Joseph Fox" <josephfoxwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
> reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
> assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
> remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
> nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

I agree.

This hasn't happened in the last 10 years of WMF history. The fact it's
happened once doesn't necessarily indicate that it will happen again in
the next 10 years.

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Dear all

I have been accused of three things:


1.

Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the
board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees.
I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
consider it unfounded.



1.

Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have
made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community
members and used independent judgement.



1.

Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce
a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a
few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself
here
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
purpose of producing such a statement.


I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
movement and the WMF.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
First of all, a happy new year to everyone!

Thank you, James, for bringing at least some light into this blurriness.
For some more light, all board members, please do me a favor and explain
briefly how you see the relationship between transparency and our movement,
especially in your work as board members. And of course, please include how
this opinion is in line with your decision in James's case. I'd really like
to know what each of you thinks about that. Thanks. :)

Th.

2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com>:

> Dear all
>
> I have been accused of three things:
>
>
> 1.
>
> Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
> decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of
> the
> board and have never given assurances that I could convince other
> trustees.
> I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
> consider it unfounded.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
> board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
> greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> have
> made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> community
> members and used independent judgement.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
> asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> produce
> a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> together a
> few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> myself
> here
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
> purpose of producing such a statement.
>
>
> I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> movement and the WMF.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Thank you for that statement, James.

I am principally concerned about an allegation that James leaked
confidential information. If that is true, then that could be a serious
problem and I can see how that would lead other trustees to feel that the
"least bad" option is to remove James from the Board. Also, if that
accusation is true, I think we as a community would be concerned about
James' suitability for other roles in the community that involve
confidentiality.

On the other hand, the Board's handling of this situation is a cause of
significant concern. Some of the Board's actions to this point have been
inconsistent with the standards of professionalism that I feel that the
employees, donors, and community would reasonably expect from one of the
world's most visible open-knowledge organizations.

I would propose an investigation into the facts and circumstances of this
situation by an outside party which has expertise in governance matters.

It seems to me that the alternative to an external investigation is to have
(another) long-running dispute about governance at WMF, which I think would
be a far worse outcome than anything resulting from an external
investigation that leads to public knowledge of the facts and appropriate
steps being taken to address any issues that come to light in the report.

I regret that we are dealing with this difficult situation on New Year's. I
hope that this is a learning opportunity for all of us.

Pine


> 2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com>:
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > I have been accused of three things:
> >
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
> > decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10%
> of
> > the
> > board and have never given assurances that I could convince other
> > trustees.
> > I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation
> but I
> > consider it unfounded.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
> > board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed
> for
> > greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> > have
> > made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> > community
> > members and used independent judgement.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
> > asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> > produce
> > a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> > together a
> > few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> > myself
> > here
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> > I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
> > purpose of producing such a statement.
> >
> >
> > I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> > movement and the WMF.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Hi all -

What concerns me as much as anything about James' removal is his final
statement - "I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests
of the
movement and the WMF." James has been active in the movement for a long
time in a variety of roles, and we have no reason to believe that this
statement is not true - in fact, even public statements from other trustees
so far have not contradicted it. If James statements is to be taken at
face value, then he has in fact met his fiduciary duty to the WMF.
Trustees don't have an inherent duty of confidentiality - they have
inherent duties of loyalty, and inherent duties of care. They *often* have
a derived duty of confidentiality, but that's a derived duty - disclosing
information related to an ongoing lawsuit to another party in a way that
would be harmful to WMF would violate the board member's duty of loyalty to
WMF. Even though that's often spoken about as if it would be a problem
because of an inherent duty of confidentiality, except in situations
involving things like obligations to third parties (e.g., most issues of
staff discipline, or explicitly private details of a contract with a
thrird party,) the root issue in the theoretical situation I described
would be breaking their duty of loyalty, not breaking their obligation to
hold an issue confidential.

I don't believe that James' announcement of his dismissal from the board is
potentially a broach of his fiduciary duty to the WMF. Given the other
issues involved here, I find it reasonable - and I tend to agree with him -
that having an open, prompt, and transparent conversation about his
dismissal from the board and the reasons behind it is in the best interests
of the Wikimedia Foundation. If he had been explicitly informed that the
rest of the board was in the process of crafting a public, detailed
statement about his dismissal, then this could potentially be an issue, but
it seems like he wasn't informed that that was the case, so I don't
understand how James' announcement of his own dismissal could be taken as a
breach of his fidicuiary duties.

Without knowing what specific information was involved, it's hard to gauge
whether James released confidential information in a way that was a breach
of his fiducuiary duties. I will say that I've talked with James pretty
often during his tenure on the board, and although he's been quite frank
about his own opinions and about how he thought certain issues should be
approached, I do not believe he disclosed a single piece of information
that would reasonably be deemed confidential to me - and even if he had
disclosed information the board believed should be held confidential (and I
honestly don't believe he did,) unless there was a secondary obligation of
confidentiality (e.g., a contract with a hosting provider with a
nondisclosure clause,) doing so wouldn't inherently be a breach of his
fiduciary duties - if he disclosed such information to me (or anyone else)
because he thought that the benefit of our advice was outweighed by the
chance of us disclosing the information further, it still wouldn't
inherently represent a breach of his obligations to the board. But again -
at least in conversations with me, he hasn't even gone that far. From time
to time he has sought my opinion about particular issues, but he's done so
in a way that hasn't made anything apparent except at the most his own
personal opinion - in cases where he sought my advice, I wouldn't even have
been able to make a clear guess as to whether he was asking for advice
about an issue currently before the board, or an issue he was considering
bringing up in six months.

Speaking with staff presents a trickier issue than the first two, but still
isn't a black and white bad thing to do. Board members are generally
encouraged to restrict their conversations to conversations with management
(so that they don't end up accidentally interfering with management issues,
since the primary role of board is governance,) but at the same time, if
they believe that in order to fulfill their fidicuciary duties they need to
have direct conversations with staff members, then legally, they would be
breaking their fiduciary duties if they *didn't* have those conversations.
While having them they should stress that they are interacting with the
staff members as individual board members, not representing management or
the BoT as a whole, and not trying to interfere with day to day management
of the organization - but it sounds like James tried to follow those
standards. There's also a secondary issue; if a staff member approached a
board member with a concern that they believed could not be adequately
addressed within their normal leadership chain, the board member would be
absolutely remiss in not at least having a conversation with the staff
member. If someone from fundraising had approached James with concerns
that management had somehow embezzled $100m, and those concerns turned out
to be at all plausible, he would be absolutely remiss in his duties as a
board member in not following up on that conversation until he determined
the veracity of the complaint (I'm making this an intentionally impossible
situation to make it clear that I'm not basing this on any actual
conversations James had with staff - because I'm unaware of what those
conversations consisted of. For those missing it: embezzling $100m would
be literally embezzling more than WMF's entire operating budget, and could
only possibly happen if all WMF staff members, board members, and outside
obsevers had literally been replaced with potatoes.)

If James believed that his conversations with staff members were reasonably
necessary to fulfill his fiduciary duties, then although he should try to
emphasize the role in which he was acting, he should have those
conversations. Just so this whole email isn't drawn on my own
knowledge{{cn}}, I want to point out that the WMF board manual - [1] -
pretty soundly supports my interpretation of all three issues that James
has seemingly been accused of. The manual makes it clear that WMF board
members should not attempt to micromanage or task staff in most instances
(with obvious exceptions like coordinating board travel,) and discourages
board members from having substantive conversations with staff without
informing the ED except in situations where the ED has a conflict -
although I would point out that that section is guidance, rather than a
description of a board member's legal obligations. If you look at the
section of the board manual that specifically describes the fiduciary
duties of board members - [2] - it stresses that board members must be as
informed as they can in considering issues that come before the board,
taking in to account all reasonable sources of information that come before
them. In most cases (that don't involve the evaluation of the performance
of management,) most of this information should be provided to board
members by the ED or other senior management, but if a board member feels
that their decision cannot be fully informed without consulting
non-management staff members, then it is up to the board member's own
judgement as to whether or not they should consult with non-management
staff.

When I was on the board of a California-based organization, we had a
director in his first year - we had a formalized performance review process
for him that involved talking to non-management staff systemically. I don't
know if WMF BoT has a similar process for Lila, but even if they don't, I
can imagine staff members raising issues they perceive with Lila directly
with a Trustee that they know. Nothing against Lila in saying that - it's
just fairly typical to have things like that happen in the first year of a
new ED's term. I don't know if that was what James' contact with staff was
about, but if it was, I could see it being more than appropriate. In a
movement that prioritizes openness as greatly as Wikimedia does, I could
also see a great degree of contact between trustees and non-management
staff being potentially appropriate.

I really hope that more information comes out to support the idea that
James' removal from the board was necessary - he ran on a more active
platform than most recent trustees has, won a pretty significant number of
votes, I think I and many others will have significant confidence in his
statement that he has always carried out his fiduciary duties (and doing so
requires him doing what he views as best for WMF, and explicitly not
subordinating his judgement to anyone else's, including other trustees,)
and so far I'm not sure that any of the publicly expressed concerns about
his actions justify his removal. I wouldn't expect every organization to
justify the removal of a trustee publicly, but with a movement that values
openness as much as ours does, I'd hope that the removal of a
community-recommended trustee could be publicly justified pretty fully.

Best,
KG

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Fiduciary_duties

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I have been accused of three things:
>
>
> 1.
>
> Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
> decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of
> the
> board and have never given assurances that I could convince other
> trustees.
> I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
> consider it unfounded.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
> board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
> greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> have
> made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> community
> members and used independent judgement.
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
> asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> produce
> a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> together a
> few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> myself
> here
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
> purpose of producing such a statement.
>
>
> I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> movement and the WMF.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
"Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I agree.
> The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may
> get away with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it
> reaches a tipping point, when the reaction becomes
> catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will
> be a large number of people who will say they told them so,
> but it may well be too late to reassemble the
> debris. Something will survive , but maybe not Wikipedia as
> we know it. How far we are from the tipping point is
> anybody's guess. At present the vast majority of the crowd
> are probably totally unaware of the problems, but I
> personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia against
> them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was
> a major walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the
> show on the road. Will the level of donations remain viable
> if the general public witnesses a meltdown? Would you bet on
> it?
> […]

That is irrelevant for threatening WMF. If at some point in
time WMF would no longer raise enough funds, its staff would
just have to pick new jobs somewhere else (just like all
other employees do in a similar situation). Working at WMF
probably has some amenities, but noone bases their decisions
on fears that as an effect their contract might be termi-
nated in ten or twenty years. Even less so do trustees plan
that they can replace their summer holiday with a trip to
Wikimania till eternity.

And it's also irrelevant for writing an online encyclopedia.
You don't need the current level of funding as only a frac-
tion actually goes to expenditures necessary for /that/, and
if you have viewers, you will have (more than sufficient)
donations.

So while a reaction may be "catastrophic and non-re-
versible", if the possible effect is a minor nuisance at
worst, then it cannot be a motivating factor.

Tim


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Just as you say.
No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community.
If all else fails thy could just sell advertising
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Landscheidt
Sent: Saturday, 02 January 2016 8:16 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

"Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I agree.
> The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away
> with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it reaches a tipping
> point, when the reaction becomes catastrophic and non-reversible. At
> which point there will be a large number of people who will say they
> told them so, but it may well be too late to reassemble the debris.
> Something will survive , but maybe not Wikipedia as we know it. How
> far we are from the tipping point is anybody's guess. At present the
> vast majority of the crowd are probably totally unaware of the
> problems, but I personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia
> against them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was a
> major walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the show on the
> road. Will the level of donations remain viable if the general public
> witnesses a meltdown? Would you bet on it?
> […]

That is irrelevant for threatening WMF. If at some point in time WMF would no longer raise enough funds, its staff would just have to pick new jobs somewhere else (just like all other employees do in a similar situation). Working at WMF probably has some amenities, but noone bases their decisions on fears that as an effect their contract might be termi- nated in ten or twenty years. Even less so do trustees plan that they can replace their summer holiday with a trip to Wikimania till eternity.

And it's also irrelevant for writing an online encyclopedia.
You don't need the current level of funding as only a frac- tion actually goes to expenditures necessary for /that/, and if you have viewers, you will have (more than sufficient) donations.

So while a reaction may be "catastrophic and non-re- versible", if the possible effect is a minor nuisance at worst, then it cannot be a motivating factor.

Tim


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11302 - Release Date: 01/01/16


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Could we stop catastrophizing the situation to the extent of open discussion of project forks, boycotts, etc?

Even if the board of trustees does turn out to have made a horrible mistake, there are many steps to remedy that short of ending the world.

So far the best description I can think of is that we have a bunch of people who were there struggling to describe the situation without breaching duty to the organization or resorting to attacks, the information release results of which so far are unsatisfying to concerned external parties such as most of us.

It's responsible to reiterate that we (the community) do need real answers to some of these questions, and that existing answers were unsatisfactory. Further work is needed. Delays are not confidence building, but obviously these are complicated issues to untangle. I for one would appreciate the board being more explicit.

This ultimately comes down to trust in people and the Board. Without information trust ebbs.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 2, 2016, at 12:37 AM, "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> Just as you say.
> No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community.
> If all else fails thy could just sell advertising
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Landscheidt
> Sent: Saturday, 02 January 2016 8:16 AM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>
> "Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>> The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away
>> with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it reaches a tipping
>> point, when the reaction becomes catastrophic and non-reversible. At
>> which point there will be a large number of people who will say they
>> told them so, but it may well be too late to reassemble the debris.
>> Something will survive , but maybe not Wikipedia as we know it. How
>> far we are from the tipping point is anybody's guess. At present the
>> vast majority of the crowd are probably totally unaware of the
>> problems, but I personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia
>> against them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was a
>> major walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the show on the
>> road. Will the level of donations remain viable if the general public
>> witnesses a meltdown? Would you bet on it?
>> […]
>
> That is irrelevant for threatening WMF. If at some point in time WMF would no longer raise enough funds, its staff would just have to pick new jobs somewhere else (just like all other employees do in a similar situation). Working at WMF probably has some amenities, but noone bases their decisions on fears that as an effect their contract might be termi- nated in ten or twenty years. Even less so do trustees plan that they can replace their summer holiday with a trip to Wikimania till eternity.
>
> And it's also irrelevant for writing an online encyclopedia.
> You don't need the current level of funding as only a frac- tion actually goes to expenditures necessary for /that/, and if you have viewers, you will have (more than sufficient) donations.
>
> So while a reaction may be "catastrophic and non-re- versible", if the possible effect is a minor nuisance at worst, then it cannot be a motivating factor.
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4489/11302 - Release Date: 01/01/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 2016-01-02 09:37, Peter Southwood wrote:
> Just as you say.
> No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing
> community.
> If all else fails thy could just sell advertising
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize
that there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not
care about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that
they did not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that
Wikipedia and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because
some novel technical means become available and we do not manage to
respond properly is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we
will collapse because BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their
daily communications with the community. Let us discuss real things and
not what happens if Martians come to enslave us.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
The sky isnt falling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny> yes it
wasnt optimally handled and yes it caught the community by surprise but
lets be careful here. We cant sit back and enjoy the holiday season while
expecting everyone else to be dropping everything and running into to the
office to write a full explanation while threaten to bring the the
projects(their livelyhoods) crashing down around their ears.

Lets just take a collective breath and wait until people start returning
next week to sort out the mess created, let them provide better information
and move forward better informed

On 2 January 2016 at 17:44, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> On 2016-01-02 09:37, Peter Southwood wrote:
>
>> Just as you say.
>> No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community.
>> If all else fails thy could just sell advertising
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>
> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the
> past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that there
> is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care about
> retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they did not
> handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that Wikipedia and
> sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel technical
> means become available and we do not manage to respond properly is in my
> opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse because BoT or
> WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications with the
> community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if Martians come
> to enslave us.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
There are helpful remedies to restore community confidence:

1. Hold an early election.
To fill the community elected seat that James has now been forced to
vacate. This would even allow James to re-run.

2. Leave James' seat empty until the next planned election.
Though the seat *can* be appointed, this is literally allowing an
unelected group of trustees to go through a list of volunteer
candidates and rejecting those that might not like the non-transparent
behaviour of the current board until they find one that will say yes
to whatever they want. This is the *opposite* of why the community
elected seats exist.

3. Commission and publish a detailed independent governance assessment
of this incident and the issues it starkly highlighted.
Including the assertions published on Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales to
James' detriment. Preferably one that can conclude within a couple of
months and costs less than $40k. Though my experience at the centre of
one of these in the past is that this is unlikely to do much to repair
community confidence by itself, but might help push the current board
to have a majority of elected seats and ensure that the majority -
that have had many years at the top of the hierarchy of our movement
without being accountable in an election - avoid being seen as having
sinecure positions of power that have the unfortunate power to club
together to vote out the elected they feel are creating waves.

4. Jimmy Wales can offer to turn his special 'founder's seat' into an
elected seat. Though not a majority, this means that the elected seats
would have significantly more authority. No doubt Jimmy will always
have a special place on the WMF board as an adviser, but he does not
*have* to take the burden of being a voting trustee, and there is no
harm in him running for election if he wishes to.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
>
> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize
> that there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not
> care about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that
> they did not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability
> that Wikipedia and sister projects will collapse in say ten years
> because some novel technical means become available and we do not
> manage to respond properly is in my opinion a billion times higher
> than that we will collapse because BoT or WMF staff function
> sub-optimally in their daily communications with the community. Let us
> discuss real things and not what happens if Martians come to enslave us.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>

I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is at
odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced leaving).

I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several
hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer almost
a dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly
with me resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for
taking my position making me becoming at odds with the rest.

But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued
to dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on
with life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to
hear "my side of it") .

In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them
to be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals
being caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality,
power hungry persons without empathy.

Anders












_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
2016-01-01 22:11 GMT+01:00 Marcin Cieslak <saper@saper.info>:

>
> Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida
> statutes it seems)
> that they were "community elected".
>
> Saper
>

The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c
of art. IV) .

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Hi all -

Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the
sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public
and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't
legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in the
interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be
examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm not
calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect
many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia - I
just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be
transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a
transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea
to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also,
potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the
Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the
rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from this:
Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely
to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet.

Best,
KG

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:

>
>
> Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
>
>>
>> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
>> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that
>> there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care
>> about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they did
>> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that Wikipedia
>> and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel
>> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond properly
>> is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse because
>> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications with
>> the community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if Martians
>> come to enslave us.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
> I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is at
> odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced leaving).
>
> I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several
> hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer almost a
> dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with me
> resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for taking my
> position making me becoming at odds with the rest.
>
> But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued to
> dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with
> life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear "my
> side of it") .
>
> In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them to
> be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals being
> caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality, power
> hungry persons without empathy.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Hi there,

I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the
recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected
Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However,
I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the majority
decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even
though you may continue to have questions, you will too.

From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with James’
personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow their
duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not
organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a car
from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is
an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to
know him.

Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.

I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does
not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community
representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for the
community representatives on the Board. I also want to be clear that the
Board decision was not based on a difference of opinion about direction or
strategy.

At this stage, I think we basically need to move on. The Board is committed
to community-nominated membership, and we are actively working with the
most recent Election Committee on a plan to fill the open
community-selected seat . We expect James to stay in the movement and
continue to do the amazing things he is well known for. Until recently, I
was also a member of the community, watching the Board’s decisions. I
understand the desire to have more details. At the same time, I genuinely
ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.

I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at
communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am optimistic
about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more
open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in
consultation with the movement.

I join my colleagues in wishing my friend, James, the absolute best in his
next ventures. I am excited that he plans to remain an active member of our
movement, and I look forward to seeing him on-wiki and at community
gatherings.

Best,

Dariusz a.k.a. pundit
02.01.2016 6:44 AM "Kevin Gorman" <kgorman@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Hi all -
>
> Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the
> sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public
> and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't
> legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in the
> interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be
> examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm not
> calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect
> many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia - I
> just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be
> transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a
> transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea
> to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also,
> potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the
> Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the
> rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from this:
> Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely
> to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet.
>
> Best,
> KG
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> mail@anderswennersten.se>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
> >
> >>
> >> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
> >> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize
> that
> >> there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care
> >> about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they
> did
> >> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that
> Wikipedia
> >> and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel
> >> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond
> properly
> >> is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse
> because
> >> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications
> with
> >> the community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if
> Martians
> >> come to enslave us.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >>
> >>
> > I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is at
> > odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced
> leaving).
> >
> > I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several
> > hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer almost a
> > dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with
> me
> > resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for taking my
> > position making me becoming at odds with the rest.
> >
> > But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued to
> > dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with
> > life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear "my
> > side of it") .
> >
> > In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them to
> > be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals
> being
> > caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality, power
> > hungry persons without empathy.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Have been enjoying discussions on the subject matter. I wish we can  understand that we are laying a  precedent that would be used to judge you and I tomorrow. 
‎
Yes, the board could be right  by the decision taking against James . More so , the communities could be  right by their reactions  against the decision. 

In light of these two positions, we need to look at the substances  surrounding the issue at hand, thus: 

1. What is James's offence 
2. Is the offense enough for a sack ‎
3. Is the board answerable to the communities in term of their decisions and activities. ‎
4. How current is the bylaw being used by the board
5 . ‎Who makes the law. 
‎
The more the above mentioned questions remain unanswered, the more the argument. Mind you, a very tiny smoke if not quenched will definitely lead to a wildfire. 
‎
Lastly,  If we could answer these golden questions, perhaps we could be on the way to resolve the matter at hand.  

WR. 
 ‎
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Gnangarra
Sent: Saturday, January 2, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

The sky isnt falling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny> yes it
wasnt optimally handled and yes it caught the community by surprise but
lets be careful here. We cant sit back and enjoy the holiday season while
expecting everyone else to be dropping everything and running into to the
office to write a full explanation while threaten to bring the the
projects(their livelyhoods) crashing down around their ears.

Lets just take a collective breath and wait until people start returning
next week to sort out the mess created, let them provide better information
and move forward better informed

On 2 January 2016 at 17:44, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> On 2016-01-02 09:37, Peter Southwood wrote:
>
>> Just as you say.
>> No threat to WMF if they don’t care about retaining the editing community.
>> If all else fails thy could just sell advertising
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>
> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in the
> past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that there
> is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care about
> retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they did not
> handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that Wikipedia and
> sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel technical
> means become available and we do not manage to respond properly is in my
> opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse because BoT or
> WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications with the
> community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if Martians come
> to enslave us.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Thanks for your thoughts Dariusz. It seems there is no WMF board commitment
to a single measurable action as a result of this badly handled incident.

I hope for a bit more than a classic "moving forward" message without
learning anything new. The unelected are entrenched and deaf to volunteer
dissatisfaction with their behaviour.

Fae
On 2 Jan 2016 11:08, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the
> recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected
> Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However,
> I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the majority
> decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even
> though you may continue to have questions, you will too.
>
> From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with James’
> personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow their
> duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not
> organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a car
> from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is
> an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to
> know him.
>
> Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
> explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
> considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
> reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
> admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
> member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
> understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.
>
> I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does
> not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community
> representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for the
> community representatives on the Board. I also want to be clear that the
> Board decision was not based on a difference of opinion about direction or
> strategy.
>
> At this stage, I think we basically need to move on. The Board is committed
> to community-nominated membership, and we are actively working with the
> most recent Election Committee on a plan to fill the open
> community-selected seat . We expect James to stay in the movement and
> continue to do the amazing things he is well known for. Until recently, I
> was also a member of the community, watching the Board’s decisions. I
> understand the desire to have more details. At the same time, I genuinely
> ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.
>
> I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at
> communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am optimistic
> about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more
> open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in
> consultation with the movement.
>
> I join my colleagues in wishing my friend, James, the absolute best in his
> next ventures. I am excited that he plans to remain an active member of our
> movement, and I look forward to seeing him on-wiki and at community
> gatherings.
>
> Best,
>
> Dariusz a.k.a. pundit
> 02.01.2016 6:44 AM "Kevin Gorman" <kgorman@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi all -
> >
> > Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that
> the
> > sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made
> public
> > and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't
> > legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in the
> > interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be
> > examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm
> not
> > calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect
> > many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia -
> I
> > just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be
> > transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a
> > transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea
> > to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also,
> > potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the
> > Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the
> > rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from
> this:
> > Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely
> > to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> > mail@anderswennersten.se>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
> > >> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize
> > that
> > >> there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care
> > >> about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they
> > did
> > >> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that
> > Wikipedia
> > >> and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel
> > >> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond
> > properly
> > >> is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse
> > because
> > >> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications
> > with
> > >> the community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if
> > Martians
> > >> come to enslave us.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >>
> > >>
> > > I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is
> at
> > > odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced
> > leaving).
> > >
> > > I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several
> > > hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer
> almost a
> > > dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with
> > me
> > > resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for taking my
> > > position making me becoming at odds with the rest.
> > >
> > > But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued
> to
> > > dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with
> > > life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear
> "my
> > > side of it") .
> > >
> > > In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them
> to
> > > be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals
> > being
> > > caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality, power
> > > hungry persons without empathy.
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
On 2 January 2016 at 10:41, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Baylaws call them " Community-selected Trustees" - not elected (sec. 3c
> of art. IV) .

But - as I pointed out earlier - the language used in public-and
community facing communications refers to "elections"; and - as I also
pointed out - this should be changed to correct the false impression
that is being given..

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board [ In reply to ]
Hi Dariusz,
governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants.

In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and
this is an unsolved real problem of governance.

As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the
board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action taken in this
specific case.

In this case the problem of un-governance is the identification of the
stakeholders and the real power in the hands of each stakeholder.

The real problem of "un-governance" is more related with the action of
the board of trustee than with James (at the moment).

I understand that James have "recognized his errors and admitted that he
made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member" but at the
moment the records of the board's meeting says that James voted against
his dismission.

It means that you are doing a personal statement, but the official one
is that James didn't accepted his dismission during the vote.

Kind regards

On 02.01.2016 12:08, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>
> Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
> explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
> considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
> reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
> admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
> member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
> understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.
>
>

--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  View All