On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote: I agree with you completely.

Although there may be aspects of the Doc James situation that legitimately must, or at least should, stay private, I am sure more can be revealed than has been to date. Let me see if I can help with one aspect of the issue. One stated reason that information has not been forthcoming, has been that revealing it could be a violation of Doc James's own privacy or his expectations of confidentiality. I expect that if asked point-blank, Dr. Heilman would agree to waive any confidentiality interest that he personally might have in keeping any aspect of the matter confidential or undisclosed. So I hereby ask him if he is able and willing to do that.. (My apologies if this has been done before and I missed it.) Doc James' agreeing that nothing needs to be kept confidential for HIS sake will not cut the entire Gordian knot that has kept this situation unclear for months -- but perhaps it will be helpful at least to some extent. Newyorkbrad/IBM On 2/29/16, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

This touches on matters beyond my scope of expertise. I didn't write that FAQ, and I am not an expert on legal terminology like "mismanagement" or "misconduct". I support that the board and legal team review the matter seriously and generously. All I'm saying is that if he is eligible, and if he is elected, then I support him rejoining the board. I'm putting forward that although I've been disappointed by his behavior (and thanks to Pete's wise words, I'm trying to open a private conversation to try to work through some of that) I am not in any way a key obstacle to his rejoining. On 2/29/16 6:35 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:

I agree as well. On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales" <jimmywales(a)wikia-inc.com> wrote:

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 alerting the ED to the conversations doesn't undermine the purpose of the conversations, which they would have hear. More importantly, as the board has made abundantly clear in recent weeks, we don't have 'board elections,' we have 'community board selections' - the 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.' Jimmy: I've been reassured that the specific email James has requested you 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 email 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 there - 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 get 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 redactions are excessive. Without any confidential information, all the email is is a 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. ---- Kevin Gorman On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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. ---- Kevin Gorman On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79(a)gmail.com> wrote: