Given that the way James and the Board should relate to staff was one issue
that lead to his removal, the situation in the wider WMF as an organization
is highly relevant here.
Under normal, smoothly-functioning circumstances (and most of my 4 year
tenure at WMF) there was little reason for non-executive staff to interact
with the Board in a professional capacity. If that isn't the case and staff
are trying to communicate with the Board directly a lot, it is smoke
pointing to a burning fire somewhere.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs
But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I
would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky
circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has
been given in public, the *possible* official misconduct with regards to
improper withholding of financial information from James, the community's
desire for significantly more transparency and openness from the Board, and
the credibility of the Board's leadership.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org