Dariusz,
One of the things you said gives a different impression than Patricio's
official statement in an important aspect.
Specifically you said:
James knew what he did wrong, but he assumed that he
could
effectively use a second chance.
That seems to suggest that James made recent error(s), that he acknowledged
these errors, and that he was willing to work on avoiding them in the
future. By contrast, Patricio's said:
Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees
had
multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct,
responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the
Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a
common understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations.
This seems to suggest that there was a long-standing disagreement about
appropriate behavior for Board members, and despite best efforts James and
the majority of the Board were not able to reach an amicable resolution.
So far, James's own comments seem more in line with the narrative that
there was a good faith but irreconcilable difference of opinion between
himself and the majority.
Would you (or James) care to clarify?
-Robert Rohde
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
Dear Dariusz,
Thank you for the response. I understand that you (and the board) want to
move on. But there are in many organisations (and countries) certain powers
that are 'excessive' - and I think expelling a board member is one of
those. I agree there can be circumstances where this power has to be
invoked, and surely I'm more than willing to assume good faith.
However, the use of such power (especially when dismissing a community
selected board member) comes with a responsibility to explain /why/ the
person was expelled towards the electorate. Patricio did a poor job at it
(he focused on process) and your elaboration makes some suggestions/nods in
which direction to look for an answer. I hope you understand that people
keep trying to figure out why James was dismissed. Even if you can't share
details, the general reason should, imho, be shared.
James suggests in his email that he was dismissed for two reasons primarily
(the third point he makes, is after the dismissal, hence irrelevant and
process). Paraphrasing, he talked with staff (and the board thought he
shouldn't have), and he would have leaked information.
Could you, or another board member, confirm whether this is a fair
representation? Again, I'm not looking for specifics if that is truely
confidential information - but I think that from a community point of view,
it is important to understand what kind of reasoning was at the basis for
this decision.
Besides that, there are many process questions still open (I agree with
many that the percentage is way too fuzzy at this point, and should perhaps
be clarified for the future, for example) but that is basically something
that should be handled independent of this particular decision.
Best,
Lodewijk
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:
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>