I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to
preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served
several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on
a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit
organization. I am also an active Wikipedian, who understands, but doesn’t
fully buy the message in the guideline “Be Bold” (
). To oversimplify, one of
the arguments in favor of Be Bold is that errors are (usually) easily
rectified. While generally true in the Wikipedia world, it is not always
true in other worlds, so one ought to take care in other venues, such as
board actions.
I suspect I share an attribute with many board members – when I learn about
a problem, I want to fix it. This typically involves (or should involve)
gathering information so as to make an informed decision or recommendation.
If I were a Board member and multiple employees reached out to say that
there are concerns requiring action, my first instinct would be to attempt
to gather more information. However, my second instinct, which I hope would
take over before the first is acted upon, is to remember that this isn’t
Wikipedia where a bungled attempt at a fix can be reverted easily. One is a
member of a Board, and one has responsibilities very different than a
Wikipedia editor. We may think that Wikipedia has too much bureaucracy, but
sometimes there are good reasons for processes, and one thing one should
not do is start interactions with employees without the knowledge of other
board members, one should not be promising confidentially if one
simultaneously has a responsibility to share some information with fellow
board members.
In other words, an honest and undoubtedly heartfelt intention to address
and solve a problem as quickly as possible turned into a sticky wicket.
Some board members managed to get themselves into a situation where they
now had information they were both obligated to share, and had promised not
to share. Once down that road, there was no “revert” button.
Retrospect, as if often said, is so clear, but in retrospect, the early
indications that there were some concerns by employees should have been
handled differently.
Phil (Sphilbrick)
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, <wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
(Denny Vrandečić)
2. Re: What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal
Involved? (Gergo Tisza)
3. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
(Michel Vuijlsteke)
4. Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal
(Adam Wight)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 17:10:21 +0000
From: Denny Vrandečić <vrandecic(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
Heilman's removal
Message-ID:
<
CAJVtBfdDkwGvRvNzOQm9eH-HoxR1xYBEKcpUK_9_eQozaZy8CA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to
James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while
I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text
was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes
post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about
the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
weeks.
With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force which
was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved
outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents
and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been
more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where it
was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the previous
investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact
finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after several,
increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with an
impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an improper
manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these mistakes.
Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board retreat
in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
could have acted more effectively.
I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to fix
the situation I suggested James’ removal.
I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during and
following the November meeting.
I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
been functioning better.
I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture of
transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists of
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as the
Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a faster
and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
experience available for future Board members and the community.
Denny
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:23:17 +0200
From: Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, &
Why is Legal Involved?
Message-ID:
<CAEVcXn1x2kwVTthdzH+Rnpb3jQ1AjbyOKMLM7dw3n+=
PBPDTfw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson <jjonsson(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
One of the problems here is that much of the
information about how the
Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different
parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g.
Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement is a good way to
collect all information about cookies
It really isn't. A policy document with very limited edit rights would be a
maintenance nightmare and never up to date. Indeed that document omits most
of the cookies used on the sites. And it never claims to list them all -
while that could be made more clear, the table is actually presented as a
list of examples .
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:39:38 +0200
From: Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
Heilman's removal
Message-ID:
<
CAHnyd4drrW8CDF4BYaguxN-8PnSD5Z-TrSYu-ZcZeKWc7nc+eA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
Michel
On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" <vrandecic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In the following I want to present a personal
account of events leading
to
James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember
them. It was written
while
I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on
having it sent. The
text
was heavily discussed and edited amongst members
of the Board, but in the
end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
includes
post-factum sensemaking, affecting my
recollection of events.
October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
about
the Foundation. They asked explicitly for
confidentiality. I wanted to
approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
weeks.
With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
which
was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
involved
outside legal counsel and conducted professional
fact finding. The first
request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
documents
and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately,
although there has been
more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where
it
was discovered during the second day of the Board
meeting that the
previous
investigation has not provided all available
information. Thus, the fact
finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
several,
increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of
the Board were left with
an
impression that James was reluctant to cooperate,
even though it was
expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
improper
manner, that he would be more collaborative to
make up for these
mistakes.
Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
retreat
in November turned out to be extremely
ineffective. If we had all
information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
could have acted more effectively.
I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
fix
the situation I suggested James’ removal.
I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an
avatar of transparency. The
whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
and
following the November meeting.
I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
been functioning better.
I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture
of
transparency, but even more I hope for
understanding. The Board consists
of
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in
real-time to events, as
the
Board was never set up to do so. Trustees -
myself included - made
mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
faster
and more complete healing process, and also have
this knowledge and
experience available for future Board members and the community.
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>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:43:50 -0700
From: Adam Wight <awight(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James
Heilman's removal
Message-ID:
<
CAO82UTdccLh+-JHgrDMqJedVY1Ek041Q-Tp3_OgmOhSo4rH7pw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
What Michel said... This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to
imagine some crucial, looming details.
I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your
description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking
for confidentiality, strongly indicates that the staff were fearful of some
sort of retribution, and each chose Board members who they personally
believed would protect them. This is an educated guess, based on our siege
mentality at the Foundation last November.
When the four of you were asked to hand over all information about the
case, that would naturally include any personal email communications. If I
were in your position, I would have respected the agreement of confidence
with anyone who had contacted me, up to and maybe even beyond a subpoena,
unless I had the authors' permission to release. If there is some legal
reason the Board members are not allowed behave according to this standard,
we need to make it very clear going forward. I doubt the staff would have
had these conversations if this is the case, and they had been informed so.
I'm also concerned that there seems to be a conflation between several
incidents--the original "Gang of Four" investigation was clearly a huge
mess and I would hope that apologies were made all around for what happened
there. However, protecting some sort of possibly compromising or personal
information is another thing entirely.
Hoping for more clarity,
Adam
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)zog.org>
wrote:
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff
members reached out
specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then
the
> Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
> staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
>
> Michel
> On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" <vrandecic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
In the following I want to present a
personal account of events leading
> to
>
James’ removal as a Board member, as I
remember them. It was written
> while
>
I was still on the Board, and the Board
agreed on having it sent. The
> text
> > was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in
the
end it
remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
includes
> post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
>
> October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone
calls
from a
small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
about
> the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an
HR
> head at the time, the others decided against
at this moment.
Effectively,
> this created a conspiracy within the Board
from then on for the
following
> weeks.
>
> With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally
collect
> and ask for reports from staff.
Unfortunately, this investigation was
not
formally
approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
which
was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
involved
> outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The
first
request
of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
documents
> and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has
been
> more than a week of time, this has not
happened in full.
>
> The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting,
where
> it
>
was discovered during the second day of the
Board meeting that the
> previous
> > investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the
fact
> finding had to be extended into the Board
meeting. At the Board meeting
> itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his
documents,
which
only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
several,
> increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left
with
> an
> > impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
> > expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
> improper
>
manner, that he would be more collaborative
to make up for these
> mistakes.
> >
> > Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
> retreat
> > in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
> > information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and
if
> that information was gathered more openly in
the first place, the Board
> could have acted more effectively.
>
> I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
> maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
> understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
> noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
> confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
>
> While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
> answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
> never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or
understood
what he
did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
fix
> the situation I suggested James’ removal.
>
> I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
> reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding
of
> information when asked for, his secrecy
towards other Board members,
even
once the
conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an
avatar of transparency. The
whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
and
> following the November meeting.
>
> I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
> been functioning better.
>
> I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our
culture
of
> transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board
consists
> of
>
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react
in real-time to events, as
> the
> > Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made
> > mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
> faster
> > and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and
> > experience available for future Board members and the community.
> >
> > 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>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9
*******************************************