This is one inherrant problem with COI those who get stuff done are forced
to sit out discussions in preference for those who spend all their time
talking and producing nothing. What we end up with is not leadership, its
not project experience, its bureaucracy with out any true direction where
every idea that sounds good, that is well presented gets the go ahead with
no understanding of what it takes to make a project work. Because of that
we have KPI or metrics that satisfy the bureaucracy, force the organisors
to run by the numbers rather than focus on producing real impact results
over the longer term.
High impact long term projects take considerable investment of time over
time the dont happen in 3, 6, 12 month cycles, look at WLE & WLM its be
year in year out commitments by volunteers to build and expand but every
year they waste time seeking funding for the year this is where the Grant
process should take the lead and just assign a long term budget to be
managed by WMF financial staff and let the volunteers concentrate on having
impact. Wikidata is in the same boat, its the bureaucratic begging
processes that cost most of our volunteers time and produce the least
impact.
Denny's loss should be awake up call otherwise it'll be repeated
continously especially from community selected seats, some where along the
way we have created a bureaucracy at the expense of trust and assuming
people are acting in good faith for the betterment of the projects
On 11 April 2016 at 15:55, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For denny I see the situation simple and I am only
able to write it as I
read his clear email.
First he is able to influence projects and general direction with his
judgement and expertise.
Second he has the expertise to get projects done.
While I find it a real pity that we have less of first when he resigns I
must admit that I consider second even more important. Choosing amongst
proposals is easier than properly proposing. Especially if nobody steps up
for something he feels should get done. For my part, I trust his expertise.
I admire and find exemplary denny showing backbone here, something we see
not enough. Deciding on this trade off should be possible at any time
appropriate, I do consequently *not* see something went awry with denny,
nor a problem with the process.
One hole in the process seems to be there though. Should a replacement be
voted now or just the old result be taken. As the situation is new for
every participant I tend to favour a vote.
Rupert
On Apr 11, 2016 07:56, "jytdog" <jytdog(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a response to Denny's resignation;
his email has been sticking to
me. To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and
advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at
a
university for the past 15 years.
The limitations created by managing or eliminating Denny's various
conflicts of interest, appear to have been surprising to Denny, and were
definitely frustrating for him.
Surprising and frustrating. This is perhaps the result of a lack of
process.
The WMF might want to consider putting in place a system of disclosing
and
managing conflicts of interest for Trustees,
before they actually join
the
board, so that conflict management issues are
both clear and acceptable
to
the new Trustee and the Board at the start.
The process could be the same as it is in many sectors - a confidential
disclosure of relevant interests, identification of possible and
perceived
conflicts between those interests and the
obligations of a Trustee, and
then creation of a plan to manage those conflicts (and identification of
areas where the conflicts can't be managed but need to be eliminated by
recusal). All done before the person actually joins the board.
Once the person joins, the relevant external interests could be disclosed
at the board member's profile on the WMF board webpage. The additional
step of publishing an outline of the management plan (at the same
location)
would be something very useful in light of the
high value that WMF staff
and the movement places on transparency.
Please consider that. And please pardon me if this is already done, but
something went awry with Denny.
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
>
> I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to
act
extremely
carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
able
to pursue my projects or some projects at work -
which I think would
align
> very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my
considerations
> openly, since they might easily be perceived
as expressions of
interests
-
> regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> employment.
>
> This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to
deal
> with the situation of people deliberating a
proposal written by my Best
> Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case,
and
refrained
from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
even
though I might have been in a unique position to
provide insight, I had
to
> refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
>
> There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by
Google.
I
> would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the
feeling
> of getting anything done while being on the
Board. As it is, neither
was
the
case.
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate
> to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his
advice,
> but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly
limiting.
>
> As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee
I
> could pursue that goal, but when even
writing a comment on a bug in
> Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read
as
"it
is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler
writing
> that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
>
> It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had
lunch
> with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early
HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that
only
> you can do. This set me, back then, on a
path that eventually lead to
the
creation
of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to
do
myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it
would be enough -
someone
will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s
plenty of committed and
smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was
back
> then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
>
wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade
later,
> realized that if I do not do it, it simply
won't happen, at least not
in
a
reasonable timeframe.
And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I
cannot
> take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest
will
be
> regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do
see
that I
should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one
deciding
> on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
> member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
> proposal and its virtues and decide on them.
>
> I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
> Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
> conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
> bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures
against
exactly
the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.
I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential
Conflict
> of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
> Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
> option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third
> option remains.
>
> So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees.
>
> It was not an easy decision, and certainly not a step made any easier
by
the
events in the last few months. I understand that I will disappoint
many
of the people who voted for me, and I want to
apologize: I am sorry,
honestly sorry, but I don’t see that it is me the Board needs now, or
that
the movement needs me in that position. What I
learned is that the
profile
> that allows someone to win an election is not the profile that makes an
> effective Trustee.
>
> But be warned that you will continue to hear from me, after a
wikibreak.
> Expect crazy ideas, project proposals, and
requests to fund and
implement
> them. I will return to a more active role
within the movement. I will
be,
again,
free to work on things that are worth doing and that only I can
do.
I think that in that role I can be more effective
and more valuable to
the
movement, the Foundation, and for our mission.
Be bold,
Denny
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>