Chris: this is certainly not meant to constitute legal advice and it's
getting tangential any way because since we have community 'selections'
James can CERTAINLY run since it's a 'selection,' but I ran the statutory
language passed a Florida lawyer, alhough one who doesn't practice this
sort of law. Section (1)(a)(1) starts off with "Except as provided in
paragraph (i)..." and then goes on to talk about further details regarding
director removal. At first glance, both she and I parsed the language to
mean that the provisions of (1)(a)(1) did not apply to directors removed
under paragraph (i) - that is, a director removed without cause would not
be subject to the provsion barring him from standing for election in the
next cycle. But this really is irrelevant, since there is no similar
provision banning the rerunning of "community selected" trustees.
Jimmy, I've been reassured by James, who I have significant trust for, that
the email James is requesting the relief of doesn't deal with confidential
WMF business. Combined with Pete Forsyth's recent message about you using
offlist messages to attack James more viciously than you have on list, it's
starting to feel a lot like you are using the cover of 'confidential board
information' to hide an email that simply makes you look bad. Please
release the email; if you don't within a couple of days, I'll start trying
to convince Doc James that it wouldn't be a violation of his integrity to
release your email even without your permission. Your behavior in these
emails could itself be significant for the movement to be aware of. You've
sent me multiple long emails; I know you have time to forward the email in
question to the list.
I'm pretty severely disappointed that the board of the largest single free
knowledge organization in the world is engaging in more vicious personal
attacks than the boards I've seen that consisted of college students, and,
equally, have been operating with less transparency.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79(a)gmail.com>
On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman
Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a
director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election
cycle. As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause. Every
reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by
WMF employees. E.g., one early frequently cited reason was that he was
having inappropriate discussions with WMF employees - multiple WMF
employees came forward to say that he promised nothing untoward in these
conversations, and simply listened to their feedback. In an ideal
situation, Board tells the ED when they have conversations with most
employees, but that's only best practice in situations where Board
the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine
the purpose of the
conversations, which they would have hear.
Agreed with your larger point about removal for/without cause. All I can
say is that the bit I quoted doesn’t state for or without cause, it doesn’t
seem to distinguish between the two modes of removal.
More importantly, as the board has made
abundantly clear in recent weeks,
we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections'
board is gracious enough to allow the community
to suggest board members,
which the board may then choose to accept or reject. Given the fact that
we do *not have* board elections, I don't think there's any doubt that
James can stand in the next 'community board selection.’
Fair point. I’m definitely not a lawyer. Nobody would be happier to see
James stand for reelection than myself. :-)
Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific
email James has requested
to release multiple times contains no
confidential information, and the
fact that you aren't releasing it isn't looking good to me. W/r/t an
related to the removal of a community selected
and trusted trustee, full
transparency seems necessary. You've said the email contains nothing of
mindshattering significance, and I suspect you are telling the truth
- I suspect that at most it contains you making
comments to James that
either weren't quite true or paint yourself in a less than great light.
But here's the rub: even if there's nothing too important in that email,
the fact that you're unwilling to release it means that you still don't
that transparency in this situation is necessary.
Are you willing to
release the email, redacting anything you view as reasonably necessarily
confidential w/r/t the BoT? I'm sure James will comment if your
are excessive. Without any confidential
information, all the email is
document that shines more light on a situation
involving the removal of a
community 'selected' trustee, something that those involved should be as
transparent as possible about.
Jimmy, I agree with Kevin. Can you please release these emails? I realise
you have a lot on your plate, but I think it would be good of you to
release these emails soon. I trust you when you tell me that you are a
champion of transparency and openness, and I also know you have had a lot
on your plate lately so I’m trying not to put too much pressure on you at
I think, however, that the sooner you release the emails, the sooner it
helps the rest of us come to an understanding why the Board made their
decisions and we can at the very least feel more confident in the integrity
of the Board of Trustees. This issue has dragged on for over two months
now, and none of us are still much the wiser, though many of us are
beginning to put the pieces together in our own heads. Which is dangerous,
as we may well be jumping to the wrong conclusions because we don’t have
enough information. Unfortunately, the lack of information is something
that only the Board can resolve for us.
There are a number of other questions that still need answering around the
grant application, so I’d love to see you clarify them soon also.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org