I didn't mention anyone in particular, I was asking for people to
reflect on their contributions, and that more people contributing here
is better than the same people going around again. [I would prefer the
mature approach that each author review their own posts and honestly
reach their own conclusion, not to be told by others.]
Some respond as if their contributions are of primacy and immediacy,
and when that is done multiple times then it could be said to be
without consideration for other opinions.
Some bring in their gloom with the Foundation, or a part of their
history, and try to link that to some catastrophe/action/conspiracy,
which is all very shallow, in my opinion, and not helpful to the
discourse for this complex matter.
I gave my opinion on what I was seeing in the list, and hoped that it
was informative to such reflections. I would also think that numbers
of us have experience in non-profits around the world, though
indubitably not of the size and complexity. That said, whomever has
has had to deal with the principles of privacy, confidentiality,
by-laws, policies, fiduciary duties and it seems to me that these are
being used here as a shield to answering questions, so let us get
clarity on these statements. 
We all wish for lots of things, but most importantly I think that we
all wish for the Board to note our disquiet of their operational
processes and outcomes. I wish to hear the answers of the Board,
though I will note that means their meeting in some form, and getting
through their official processes and that all takes time. I would
much rather here the right statements, rather than quick or
whitewashed statements. To me, speed of resolution comes second to the
To me what is clearly needed here is a fulsome statement from the
Chairman to acknowledge the disquiet and to make a commitment to
review their process, their needs and this outcome. I see that his
previous statement as more troubling than enlightening.
To me (as an outsider observing only) the Board has taken on an issue
1) without understanding the consequences of the outcome
2) without a plan for what they were going to do if the resolution was
3) thinking that their historic methodology is unquestionably the right method
4) that disruptive technology (aka James) was successful in his
candidacy due to exactly what they were railing against; and one would
think that our Board should clearly be attuned to community's messages
and aware of disruptive ideology.
To me, at face value, this is an appalling fail in terms of risk
management, and if nothing else our Board should be practising good
risk management. That fail sets off alarm bells for me. Now I am
wishing to understand whether I just don't have enough information, or
whether we have elements of either risk blindness or risk denial, and
the only means to understand that is clarity from the Board.
The Board's inability to respond in a professional manner (one voice:
a clear and timely voice) to this revolt from their informed and
experienced user base, speaks to one or more of: insufficient skills;
insufficient planning; unsuitable systems;, wrong processes; or
And please don't start me on this call for involvement of the Comms
team and the right messaging. I have met them and hold them in great
regard, this, however, is not about their massaging a determination of
the Board. In plain man speak "you cannot shine a turd!"
Now having spoken, I will be quiet and go back to reading and
contemplating of (most) others' emails (and editing).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:19:33 -0800
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated
I hope some of my earlier contributions were, well, contributions, since I
do have fairly extensive training in the governance requirements of
CA-based non-profits - which certainly aren't Florida-based nonprofits, but
definitely share some similarities. One of the things that has concerned
me is the public words of board members have pretty much entirely stressed
a hope to move past this smoothly, rather than a desire to instigate even
the sort of external review that the IEP resulted in. One thing that would
make me pretty much shut up about the matter instantly is if, preferably
the BoT as a whole, but even an individual board member, voiced a strong
opinion/desire/committment to try to ensure that events that have
transpired so far are subject to an outside review by a group without
previous strong connections to the WMF that has a strong familiarity with
Florida NPO governance, and is as transparent as possible.
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Richard Ames <richard(a)ames.id.au> wrote:
> Yes, please slow down the conversation and reduce the alarmist tones ....
> Regards, Richard (one of your moderators)
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:16 PM, billinghurst <billinghurstwiki(a)gmail.com>
> > The whole process of James sacking from and by the Board is disturbing
> > to many of us. At this point there are many who have ... much to say.