Nope, I don't have the feeling there is such broad agreement on those four points indeed. The only thing I heard broad agreement on, is that the removal of James was painful, and clumsily handled. Probably there is also broad agreement that with the facts on the table as they are, others would not quickly agree with that decision.
But after all that has passed, I'm really not sure how constructive it would be to reappoint James to the board at this point. This is a different decision than the one to remove someone. You can disagree with removal, and then also disagree with reappointment. I don't say it /shouldn't/ happen, but I'm rather unsure about it. What we need right now at the WMF is a functional board of trustees, and forcing someone down their throat would probably take away energy and attention to what they should really focus on.
I also don't think there is any agreement on 'never remove a community trustee'. I do feel there is agreement that the process is flawed, and needs improvement. There are many people who asked for an additional step in that process. I'm not so sure if that is legally possible without turning the structure of the WMF upside down.
The elimination of the Founder seat, I'm also not so certain there is broad agreement. There are doubts though, for sure. And there is also no broad agreement to keep the seat as it is.
And finally, yes, I do think there are many people who want to 'truly elect' community representatives. But again, I'm uncertain whether that is legally possible without turning the structure of the WMF upside down. In a foundation, the board has the ultimate authority, so to include a rule that delegates that authority to an vaguely defined group of people is... tricky.
As many of these points are tricky, legally speaking, I would rather suggest to re-evaluate the setup of the WMF in general, and take these points as part of that process. Lets do that after the ED search is at least well underway. These processes tend to take more energy than you expect. And there's no board approval necessary to make a proposal from community input of course!
Lodewijk
2016-05-09 5:41 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Sorry Pete, there is not. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated, though, as Denny's message was intended to shed light on a dynamic that
has
clearly involved Jimmy Wales in a central role.
All:
It seems (as is often the case) that we have gotten a little off track
with
some details, where there is some disagreement; but I suspect there is a pretty high degree of agreement on most of the steps Todd recommended above. I'll summarize them again here:
- Restore James Heilman to the board (in Denny's now vacant seat)
- Never remove a community trustee
- Eliminate Founder's Seat, with various future possibilities for
Jimmy
Wales' role. 4. (expressed as optional) Make Community seats truly elected;
increase
number.
I pretty much agree with all of this, and I feel it would be helpful if others would briefly state if they do too. My comments:
- We'd be lucky if James Heilman stays willing to serve. He was a good
trustee to begin with, and it seems apparent the reasons for his removal were vastly insufficient. Jimmy and Denny have both made various efforts
to
justify the decision, which is appreciated, but I find the results
entirely
lacking. Guy Kawasaki, Frieda Brioschi, Alice Wiegand, and Patricio
Lorente
remain on the board, but have said almost nothing on the topic. At least one trustee has stated that he "voted with the majority" as though that
is
compatible with good governance (which it obviously isn't, as no trustee should be able to know others' votes for certain prior to deciding their own); and as though the upgrade from "majority" to "two-thirds majority" (required under Florida law for not-for-cause removal) isn't significant.
- I agree with both Dariusz and James. I don't see an explicit need for
changes to policy, but some articulation of process, or commentary on
what
kind of things could trigger expulsion could be very helpful.
- Eliminate Founder's Seat: Yes. The board should vote to remove Jimmy
Wales from the Founder's Seat (because there is still more than 2.5 years left in his term), and should vote to eliminate the Founder's Seat. What happens after is a separate question; a special advisory role seems ideal to me. These steps are easily accomplished. It's hard for me to imagine
how
a trustee could persuade him or herself that Jimmy's continued presence
in
the privileged Founder's Seat is in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation.
By the way, I think the WMF board may have successfully obscured the fact that Jimmy Wales' role has actually *increased* in recent months, not decreased: board minutes that took a long time to publish revealed that
he
was the first (and to my knowledge only) person selected as a Trustee of the new Endowment. I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.
- I agree that tinkering with board composition may be valuable, but is
secondary to the others. The main thing here is, the board should start
to
get the very basics of governance right. Any consideration of the
structure
of the board distracts from the fact that individuals made bad decisions. The main focus should be on correcting those errors, and rebuilding
trust.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain communication channels, not "our entire movement.")
But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or
not a
certain trustee should remain in their position.
You are correct, because that's not where I was going with that:
Denny's
account here has no logical relation as to whether or not Jimmy should
be
on the board. It's being used to promote a political position.
Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad nauseum,
doesn't
it
stand to reason that there might be more than eight who feel the same
way,
but don't see the benefit in repeating it ad nauseum? Doesn't it
stand
to
reason that there might be more than eight who *cannot* publicly
state
their view, without risking (in reality or in their imagination) substantial backlash due to their roles?
Yes, there is a political camp within the movement that is anti-Jimmy
that
is larger than eight people. These eight do a fine job speaking up
loudly
to let us know that there is a political camp that is anti-Jimmy.
That's
fine to feel that way. To continually hijack important conversations
about
vision, strategy, and process to have to /always/ talk about a single individual or cause is harmful to our movement. It's simple DivideAndConquer group dynamics, and it should not be supported. I'm
not
saying that people or groups cannot or should not be criticised - it's
very
important. But the shell game that Blame Jimmy is not helpful in the
least.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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