Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.....The community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't really that good, including some recently but James has been an exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..

It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his place even before the fire died down..so yes, even if the current members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community DO...thats all that matters.

On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.

It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively and aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time. But I've been talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption, had a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid feeling that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.

James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees that would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue. Not all trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times, and sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that at another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't have time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just made the wrong call. However, this is a situation where Jame's was acting as an exemplar and was removed for it. That is not intended to denigrate the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either. Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing. One of the first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating James.

---

Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all -

I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread. To an informed observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and to a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious. It would be unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,) trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.

I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation. His removal wasn't a surprise to him, he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation.

And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.

---

Kevin Gorman

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon as they are given an opportunity.

-- John Vandenberg

Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed to the seat vacated by James Heilman:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html

And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an election. Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the seat formerly occupied by James.

I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must deal with here and now.

Cheers, Craig

On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:

...

While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up, the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't think it's realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was,

and

...

expect that the BoT would function properly again with James back in place. Keeping in mind his former position as a community selected

trustee

...

has already been filled with Maria Sefidari, at any rate.

Correction: Maria Sefidari was a "candidate for community selection", she was not selected by the community but appointed using an post election invented procedure for political convenience. If Maria wishes to become a community selected board member she would need to *win an election*, until that time she is in reality an appointed member.

I hope that Maria will run for a proper election at the earliest opportunity. She was a good candidate and would be a better representative if correctly elected.

Fae

faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to serve in that role.

I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put forth for a neutral outside review of the situation are long overdue. And the Board also needs to seriously reconsider what was (not) communicated when the situation occurred. Essentially, we got a load of say-nothing PR garbage, not a frank and thorough explanation, of why a trustee overwhelmingly voted for by the community had been involuntarily removed without consulting that same community.

I think there are a few points that need to be thought through. First, it needs to be clarified what really happened. Jimmy has publicly and bluntly accused James of lying about the circumstances of his departure, but has also steadfastly refused to say what he considers the truth to be and why. Having been accused that way, James has every right to defend himself, but the entire Board has steadfastly refused to say what they see the truth as actually being, only releasing PR gibberish that said absolutely nothing. If James was calling attention to serious problems at the Foundation and doing everything he could to find out more about them, well, I think it's pretty clearly turned out that he was in fact right. If that's the case, he was in fact fulfilling his duty to look after the interests of the WMF. And if James were acting with some kind of malfeasance (which I consider highly unlikely, but more as a hypothetical for if such a thing ever did occur), we need to know that, too, because chances are very good that otherwise, we'll elect him again by a landslide if he chooses to run again. I'm sure everyone knows the end of the story if that happens and the Board refuses to seat him.

Secondly, I think the Board needs to hold a frank and open review of its processes around dismissing trustees, especially community-selected ones. Even if it's not technically legally required to consult the community before the fact or frankly inform them why a decision was made after, is relying on a legal technicality to do an end-run around the community election process an appropriate way of handling things? I think that question deserves careful consideration.

Additionally, I think it needs to be considered whether a formal apology is owed. Even if too much water has passed under the bridge for reinstatement to be workable, saying "Hey, we're sorry, you actually brought up valid concerns even if we didn't agree with your methods at the time" might be a very good step toward the healing process. (If that's actually true, of course.) If the Board shot the messenger rather than addressing serious problems (and, well, that's what a lot of us think), that needs to be candidly addressed.

And finally, I think the communication style in itself needs to be reexamined. A lot of trustees come from corporate backgrounds where that type of opaque, "nothing to see here folks, move along" style of communication is acceptable and expected. Wikimedians generally expect better than that, and I think we should expect better than that. Ducking and weaving around direct questions breeds mistrust; sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't think your actions would be defensible if you publicly and frankly say why you undertook them, you probably need to rethink them. There will of course be times that some information will be necessarily private, but that should be considered an exception that must be well-justified, not the rule. And if that is the case, don't try to spin and obfuscate with a bunch of PR junk, just frankly say "We (can't|won't) tell you that because _________."

The volunteer community does need the WMF. After all, someone's got to keep the servers running, and handle things like legal services and the millions of dollars that flow through the organization. But the WMF needs the volunteer community too, or it may as well just shut the lights off on the way out. Each side should see the other as an equal and necessary partner and as an ally towards the common aim of creating the best free and open educational resources possible.

Right now, it seems that a lot of the community sees the WMF as an overbearing would-be "owner" of the projects that needs to be pushed back at every turn, and it seems the WMF sees the community as a nuisance to be stiff-armed out of the way if it dares to get in the way of some grand strategy. That's not a healthy dynamic, and we don't fix it without open, fully transparent, and honest communication.

Well, that turned out longer than I expected, but I can't really find any parts that I don't think need to be said. I think we're at a unique opportunity to reexamine how the WMF can best serve the goals of the movement, and what its role should be in doing so. I think we're also at a point to consider what exactly the Board's role should be in that, what its priorities should be, and how it should operate under difficult circumstances. Obviously, what happened this time was not optimal. Please keep the lines of communication open as you move forward with any reviews and reconsiderations. For better or worse, the perception will be that if you're not talking about it, you aren't thinking about it and don't care.