+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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)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 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)halonetwork.net> 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(a)gmail.com> a écrit :

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

+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(a)gmail.com> wrote: