This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles
all of
Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last
couple of months.
On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious
to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other
side, I know well seven of the other Board members and I am quite sure
they wouldn't do anything that stupid like removing community elected
Board member because differences in the vision of WMF future.
Patricio's and Dariusz's responses didn't help a lot. I was quite
angry on them because I just saw demagogy in their emails. Initially.
Then I read this Dariusz email and became angry again. But a cigarette
after I understood his political discourse. You know, politicians tend
to tell you so much nonsense around the information, that you simply
can't understand the information. But they do transfer the
information, as Dariusz did it.
After reading Daridusz's response, I read again Patricio's email from
December 31st and it definitely supported my understanding of the
situation.
The answer is not spectacular at all. It's about inner dynamics of the
Board and it could happen inside of any Board composition and with any
of the Board members, no matter of the vision of particular Board
member.
Before I tell you that quite unspectacular "truth", I want to say that
I completely understand both sides. From one perspective, I could
imagine myself in James' position; from the other one, the decision of
other Board members to protect Board's integrity seems quite
reasonable.
Imagine a situation when majority of Board members make one decision,
which staff don't like. That decision was a product of weeks or months
of discussion and it's almost certain that all the arguments were
processed very well.
James doesn't agree with that decision, as he sees that it could harm
some of the employees: it could be about layoffs or it could be just
about making things odd enough for some of the employees, that they
won't feel well doing their job anymore.
Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
"Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
those. You should do this, I will do that."
I suppose the situation could be more fuzzy: Board was preparing
decision; James saw some employees would be strongly against it; he
told that to them to try to influence the rest of the Board. It's
quite an issue to draw the line between transparency and disclosing
confidential information in such situations. And, as I told above, I
could easily do the same thing as James did.
What I see as a bottom line here is that the issue wasn't about
strategic or political disagreement, but about dynamics of one group,
which happened to be WMF Board. From that perspective, decision is
definitely up to that group, as well as I understand now James'
statement from the December 29th: "My fellow trustees need no reason
beyond lack of trust in me to justify my removal. No reason beyond
that is needed per our board by laws."
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
Hi there,
I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on the
recent Board decision. These are my own thoughts, as a community-selected
Board member who voted in the minority for the recent resolution. However,
I also want to be clear that I support the outcome and the majority
decision, and look forward to a new community Trustee. I hope that, even
though you may continue to have questions, you will too.
From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with
James’
personal integrity. The Board however must ensure that members follow
their
duties and obligations in their roles as Trustees. My personal (not
organizational) trust in James is 100%, in the sense that I would buy a
car
from him, and leave him the keys to my house without hesitation. James is
an exceptional individual and an amazing Wikipedian. I feel privileged to
know him.
Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.
I do want to comment on one point very important to me: This decision does
not signal a shift on the Board’s attitude towards community
representation, and does not alter our commitment to an active role for
the
community representatives on the Board. I also want to be clear that the
Board decision was not based on a difference of opinion about direction or
strategy.
At this stage, I think we basically need to move on. The Board is
committed
to community-nominated membership, and we are actively working with the
most recent Election Committee on a plan to fill the open
community-selected seat . We expect James to stay in the movement and
continue to do the amazing things he is well known for. Until recently, I
was also a member of the community, watching the Board’s decisions. I
understand the desire to have more details. At the same time, I genuinely
ask for you to assume good faith from the Board.
I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at
communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am
optimistic
about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more
open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in
consultation with the movement.
I join my colleagues in wishing my friend, James, the absolute best in his
next ventures. I am excited that he plans to remain an active member of
our
movement, and I look forward to seeing him on-wiki and at community
gatherings.
Best,
Dariusz a.k.a. pundit
02.01.2016 6:44 AM "Kevin Gorman" <kgorman(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi all -
Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that
the
sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made
public
and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't
legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in the
interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be
examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm
not
calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect
many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia -
I
just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be
transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a
transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea
to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also,
potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the
Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the
rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from
this:
Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely
to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet.
Best,
KG
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <
mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
>
> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in
> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize
that
> there is not a slightest indication at this
time that they do not care
> about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they
did
> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way.
The probability that
Wikipedia
> and sister projects will collapse in say ten
years because some novel
> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond
properly
> is in my opinion a billion times higher than
that we will collapse
because
> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in
their daily communications
with
> the community. Let us discuss real things and
not what happens if
Martians
> come to enslave us.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is
at
odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced
leaving).
I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several
hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer almost
a
dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with
me
resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound
reasons for taking my
position making me becoming at odds with the rest.
But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued
to
dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with
life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear
"my
side of it") .
In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them
to
be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals
being
caring, and the opposite to my most hated
disliked personality, power
hungry persons without empathy.
Anders
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: