Hi
This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
And I guess this one too https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and approved by all.
At the same time, some enduring record seems essential. Recordings that are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the above happen? So not open, but recorded?
What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences in statements that were made about those events. Really hard.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
And I guess this one too https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and approved by all.
At the same time, some enduring record seems essential. Recordings that are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the above happen? So not open, but recorded?
What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences in statements that were made about those events. Really hard.
I agree.
Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what was meant rather than what was actually said.
And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
+1
Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release the recordings publicly.
We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please, start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and their (understandably fallible) memories.
And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
And I guess this one too
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and approved by all.
At the same time, some enduring record seems essential. Recordings that are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the above happen? So not open, but recorded?
What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
differences
in statements that were made about those events. Really hard.
I agree.
Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what was meant rather than what was actually said.
And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
-- John Vandenberg
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
Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release the recordings publicly.
We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please, start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and their (understandably fallible) memories.
And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
And I guess this one too
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and approved by all.
At the same time, some enduring record seems essential. Recordings
that
are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
the
above happen? So not open, but recorded?
What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
differences
in statements that were made about those events. Really hard.
I agree.
Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what was meant rather than what was actually said.
And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
-- John Vandenberg
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
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
Thanks for the kind replies.
The thing I really want to surface here, is the harder thing.
It seems to me that what has gone on around James Heilman's dismissal, has some things to do with basic board processes being poor, and poorly executed, for sure, but also.. and this is the hardest part of all - we have the behavior of individuals, within that flawed context. Flawed behavior, that was possible in the context of poor processes poorly carried out. But flawed behavior. I had a boss who liked to say "You can't legislate morality." when we were talking about strategic decisions and policies. A lot comes down to the choices that individuals make about what to do or say.
The really hard thing is that we have on the one hand the board stating very clearly that it was unanimous back in November with regard to Lila, and James writing, "it was not unanimous". We have the board saying that James' dismissal had nothing - nothing - to do with transparency, and James saying that this was absolutely relevant to the conflicts that led to his dismissal.
I don't know about others, but I find these contradictions to be almost unbearable. It is really obvious to me that if the past is going to be laid to rest so that we can move forward with all these people still in the community - so that we can move forward as a community - these contradictions need to be resolved. Which means that individuals have some hard choices, as do we as a community.
How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the contradictions?
We talk a lot about our values. Is there room for forgiveness, so if it turns out that people have made public misrepresentations, there is room for them to come out and say "Yes that thing I said wasn't true, forgive me?" Or do we hold this kind of behavior unforgiveable and people who have misrepresented things need to go? Part of me hopes that there is some truth in what everybody has said, a la Rashomon. But with such frank contradictions, it is hard to get there.
How do we work this out? That is the question I would love us to tackle.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release the recordings publicly.
We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please, start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and their (understandably fallible) memories.
And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of
those
video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective
of
whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
And I guess this one too
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what
Risker
wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and approved by all.
At the same time, some enduring record seems essential. Recordings
that
are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
the
above happen? So not open, but recorded?
What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
differences
in statements that were made about those events. Really hard.
I agree.
Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what was meant rather than what was actually said.
And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
-- John Vandenberg
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
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
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
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the contradictions?
Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.
Jimmy said on 28 February that he would know within a few days' whether it was okay to publish it. [1] James has said that nothing needs to be kept secret for his sake. [2]
It would be good to have an update regarding that email.
Sarah
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
I note that Patricio, despite being Chairman of the board, and a trustee selected from within the movement, has not participated in this list's discussion of the crisis, or the list at all, since January. This is very disappointing.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:36 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the contradictions?
Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.
Jimmy said on 28 February that he would know within a few days' whether it was okay to publish it. [1] James has said that nothing needs to be kept secret for his sake. [2]
It would be good to have an update regarding that email.
Sarah
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html _______________________________________________ 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
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
I agree with Craig on the most reasonable interpretation of the limited commentary from the Board in recent weeks. Indeed, it would be quite normal, even expected, to include a mutual non-disparagement clause in any separation agreement, which by its very nature is confidential.
Risker/Anne
On 7 March 2016 at 01:50, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
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
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals - have created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved. This is what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible from the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
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
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff (C-levels included). Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" jytdog@gmail.com a écrit :
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals - have created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved. This is what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
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
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
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.info wrote:
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff (C-levels included). Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" jytdog@gmail.com a écrit :
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be
so
foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals - have created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved. This
is
what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that
Lila's
continuation was the best thing.
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
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
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
Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than is really there.
Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself trust-destroying for [him]". He said it was a mistake, and he said it was a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover from a 90% staff disapproval level.
He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts". Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.
Risker/Anne
On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.info wrote:
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff (C-levels included). Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" jytdog@gmail.com a écrit :
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
did
support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely
allowed
this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be
so
foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals -
have
created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
This
is
what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
and
to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
bad
choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
go
forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern
Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be
the
case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into
the
public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether
the
"full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that
Lila's
continuation was the best thing.
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
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
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
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
Thanks Risker. Maybe there is a mixing of levels here.
I am urging that we address things have become broken on a deep level, namely the gap between what the board says and what James has said and the destruction of trust caused by that gap.
If all Pierre was doing was saying that he disagreed with the November decision, that has really nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss. My sense was that he was responding on the level I was discussing and saying that the decision itself was trust-destroying. Perhaps I was wrong. That could well be.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than is really there.
Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself trust-destroying for [him]". He said it was a mistake, and he said it was a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover from a 90% staff disapproval level.
He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts". Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.
Risker/Anne
On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that
throwing
integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it
is
absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have
been
honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that,
and
if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous.
Misrepresenting
things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge
rifts
that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that
just
destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper
wound.
This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.info wrote:
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and
undermine
the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED"
straw
poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more
it
costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff (C-levels included). Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" jytdog@gmail.com a écrit :
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
did
support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose
to
state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the
board
actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely
allowed
this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes
and
swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would
be
so
foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals -
have
created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
This
is
what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per
se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
and
to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
bad
choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
go
forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else
is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern
Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be
the
case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as
possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into
the
public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com
wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether
the
"full confidence of the board" actually meant the full
confidence:
IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that
Lila's
continuation was the best thing.
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>
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
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
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
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
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:24 PM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
Quite. I hope board members have been reflecting on
1. who on the board suggested and pushed for this "unanimous" wording, 2. who on the board felt uncomfortable with it, and 3. whether the latter group was browbeaten into accepting it – and, if so, what that says about group dynamics on the board.
+1. There was an easy way to split the baby here; "the board has confidence". Done. Simple. What the language actually used did, as well as (now) betray trust and confidence, was induce the sense that for all people said they were listening to staff, nobody was.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:24 PM, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
Quite. I hope board members have been reflecting on
- who on the board suggested and pushed for this "unanimous" wording,
- who on the board felt uncomfortable with it, and
- whether the latter group was browbeaten into accepting it – and, if so,
what that says about group dynamics on the board. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Jytdog,
My response was actually more to Oliver than you, but I still would draw a distinction between "unanimous support" and "majority support". It might seem innocuous enough but as Pierre-Selim points out, "majority support" is actually not a great reflection on an employee, as it presumably means that some important people want to be rid of them. Of course, without the inconsistent messaging from the BoT drawing attention to this point, it probably would not have become an issue.
I do concur with the general thrust of the rest of your message; that poor recordkeeping and confusion in the way that the trustees have reacted to this situation (and the Geshuri situation, and the Heilman situation, and the search engine situation generally) has made things a lot worse than they needed to be.
Cheers, Craig
On 8 March 2016 at 04:16, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and everything to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be so foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals - have created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved. This is what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's continuation was the best thing.
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
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org