On 28 Feb 2016, at 6:51 PM, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Chris,
It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising
legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would
just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going
through an ED transition, impacting nearly 300 staff members most
immediately. The Board's primary responsibility at this point is to
identify interim leadership, set that person up for success, and renew
the Board's bridge to the staff. Painful as the situation with James
Heilman is, it is legitimate to address it later, in a professional
and civil manner.
I hear you, and I would normally agree. However, I’m not entirely sure that it is James
that is the person you need to be directing your email to.
Quite frankly, James’ reputation has been damaged by the words used by various Board
members. Denny has, in my view, made certain allegations that James could not be trusted
with confidential Wikimedia Foundation business, but there is no direct evidence this was
ever, or has ever, been the case.
The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list:
It was written at a time when there were efforts
underway by Patricio to
get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an encouragement to
James to be honest with the community about what happened. It is not a
full explanation of what happened - he already knew that.
And yet, when he was advised by James that in fact that effort was spearheaded by James
and not Patricio, he turns around and states that he didn’t know as he wasn’t involved.
Jimmy has just now written that it was the Wikimedia Foundation that “encouraged [him] to
be honest with the community”. Jimmy is saying, yet again, that James is not honest and is
a liar. It was not James who wrote that he "made a lot of noise about why he was
dismissed which is utter and complete bullshit”, nor was it James who wrote that "I
was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence”, with the clear implication that
James was someone who leaked secrets.
If civil discourse had have happened, and Board members were open and showed that they
were able to give clear, factual information as to why he was removed, then this would of
course not be a problem. It is very unfortunate that Jimmy and Denny made these
statements, had they not made such inflammatory statements then I would of course bow to
your request. It *has* been a very difficult time, and nobody is happy with this
situation. Unfortunately, those who should have known better (in particular Jimmy) have as
another member has described it, "been mauling each other politely in public” [1]
this isn’t going to go away.
I would encourage James, Jimmy, Denny and others
similarly to not
shoot from the hip at this time. I know something about shooting from
the hip, and it rarely moves things forward positively. ;-) This
dispute may need a facilitator and a quiet, generous conversation to
be settled amicably. Given that Dariusz voted to retain James, I trust
James hasn't done anything so dastardly that this cannot be done.
Dariusz has been nothing short of amazing in this whole situation. I have nothing but the
greatest of respect for him, he is a true diplomat, and IMO he seems to have a very deep
understanding of not only the Foundation’s mission, but how Wikimedia works in totality.
Shooting from the hip is definitely not what I’m aiming for though. I actually spent a
long time working out what I wanted to say before I decided to wade into this mess by
subscribing to this mailing list and sending that rather long open letter to the board. Of
course, I know that’s not what you mean also, and I know that my timing is less than
awesome, but given the things that have been written about James by people who should know
better, they have now left us all in the rather unfortunate situation where these issues
must be addressed before anything can be resolved at Board level.
Now I’m not saying that quiet, generous conversation cannot happen. I know James well
enough to know that throughout all of this there isn’t even a single email, communication,
Facebook post or Wiki edit that can be said to have been unfair, unfeeling, ungenerous,
rude or abusive. Not one, and I challenge anyone here to point me to such a contribution.
James has, and continues to have, a great passion for Wikimedia and its central tenants of
openness, transparency, civility and great work.
Frankly, I’m amazed at James’ good grace. I have seen on Facebook certain people accuse
him of not answering his phone when he was high on mountain slopes where there are limited
opportunities to use the Internet, and VOIP is banned or else it uses up everyone’s
bandwidth. I have now read the Founder of Wikipedia accuse him of being dishonest.
But, how, precisely, are we meant to take this? At the very least, surely those attacking
James should acknowledge their accusations and their unbecoming, abusive language were way
out of line? How can this possibly reflect well upon the Wikimedia Foundation? One of the
five pillars is civility. Yet here we have the Founder abusing a former WMF Board Member.
That same Founder claims that nobody is more compliant with these central tenants than
himself. I can only imagine he forgot himself in a stressful situation; but now he refuses
to even acknowledge his actions. I cannot see how there can be generous conversation
whilst this stands.
Everyone has had an incredibly long week. I am sure
everyone--including Board members, who are all volunteers with other
obligations--is still stressed right now about what's to come. People
don't make the best decisions when they are too stressed, too tired,
too busy. It's important that the Board is given some space to focus,
to move forward one step at a time.
Agreed. I think it would be very good for all Board members, and everyone else who has
been badly stressed by this situation (which I include the many, many dedicated volunteers
and staff members of the WMF!) to take a break over the next few days. It is definitely
not a situation within which stressed, tired and busy people can easily make important
decisions.
The issue, of course, is that this crisis has now caused an urgent need for something to
be address the way in which James was removed. Now whilst a few days may go by with in
which the Board regroups, there will need to be an accounting for it. The Board *will*
need to publicly address this issue. The Board *will* need to look at their problems with
transparency and openness. They *will* need to address the current climate of fear and
intimidation within the WMF. They *will* need to address the situation that can occur when
someone asks too many questions and is then removed from the Board, which to the mind of
most thinking people is precisely what happened to James.
I concur with your call for greater transparency and
involvement of
the Board in meaningful conversations with staff and volunteers. I
also think other steps of Board reform, including better training for
Board members, ought to be considered. I would love to hear more from
recently appointed Board members like Guy and Kelly, to understand
their perspective on the last few months. But all in due time.
Agreed also. I think that the Board is not well trained in their fiduciary duties. There
seems to be a misconception that fiduciary duties mean that all matters must be kept
confidential. There is clearly a problem with secrecy, which now that Lila has resigned we
can now see very clearly. Board reform, including increasing transparency by recording
meetings, or reforming meeting minutes, must be an urgent matter that needs addressing. I
would also love to hear from the newly appointed Board members on how they feel these
issues must be tackled.
Warmly,
Erik
From me also :-) I appreciate your wise words, and yes I know I’m going at this very
strongly, and I regret I feel the need to do so. If people had done things differently
from the start, I likely as not would not have even sent an email, let alone such a
strongly worded one. I am, as I’ve said, more of an outsider to the WMF, but given my
experiences on Wikipedia and the relationships I still have with many people on Wikipedia,
I felt I could not stay silent.
I wish everyone the best, and I truly mean that - including Jimmy, Lila, Denny and others
who I have criticised. The WMF is truly an important force for good in this world, and as
any true Wikipedian (even an inactive one) I want a strong Board of Trustees, with
independent and wise leadership.
Chris
1.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082639.html