Dear all,
right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community) to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of speculation.
I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
Here's what I think might have happened:
James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic and collective voice to the outside. These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust. The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership, and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James, being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation, so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from the board.
This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what they perceive is incorrect.
Tobias
The major problem is and has been for a while is that we have people in the hierarchy who do not understand how the wiki works, most have never made an edit out of their 'hidden' wikis or userpages on wmfwiki or meta..
How can one trust a product in the hands of someone who does not use it? ..We will never get a truthful answer for his removal and the reason is probably quite petty as well but it shows discord amongst our so called 'leaders' and its sad and ironic that this had to happen around the time wikipedia is doing its donation drive..honestly, WMF has taken a nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
--- Cometstyles/Warpath
On 1/9/16, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear all,
right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community) to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of speculation.
I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
Here's what I think might have happened:
James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic and collective voice to the outside. These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust. The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership, and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James, being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation, so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from the board.
This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what they perceive is incorrect.
Tobias
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 Cometstyles -
A lot of people have put much more of themselves into the project than me but I would like to request that we maintain a civil tone and subject. Regardless of how we feel about professional aptitude I think we should leave personal lives and families out of these discussions.
-Toby
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Comet styles cometstyles@gmail.com wrote:
The major problem is and has been for a while is that we have people in the hierarchy who do not understand how the wiki works, most have never made an edit out of their 'hidden' wikis or userpages on wmfwiki or meta..
How can one trust a product in the hands of someone who does not use it? ..We will never get a truthful answer for his removal and the reason is probably quite petty as well but it shows discord amongst our so called 'leaders' and its sad and ironic that this had to happen around the time wikipedia is doing its donation drive..honestly, WMF has taken a nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
Cometstyles/Warpath
On 1/9/16, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Dear all,
right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community) to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of speculation.
I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
Here's what I think might have happened:
James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic and collective voice to the outside. These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust. The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership, and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James, being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation, so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from the board.
This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what they perceive is incorrect.
Tobias
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Cometstyles
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Comet styles cometstyles@gmail.com wrote:
....honestly, WMF has taken a nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
This past week has obviously been intense, and I understand getting riled up, but until now the discussion on this list has remained remarkably civil in spite of it.
I don't consider Wil to be in any way relevant to the current discussion, but more to the point, this is a plain slur which adds nothing to the debate. I'll continue letting your posts through as long as they're civil and productive, but you're on moderation for now.
Austin
I hope this person is blocked from posting again here. Utterly inappropriate.
On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Comet styles <cometstyles@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
....honestly, WMF has taken a nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
This past week has obviously been intense, and I understand getting riled up, but until now the discussion on this list has remained remarkably civil in spite of it.
I don't consider Wil to be in any way relevant to the current discussion, but more to the point, this is a plain slur which adds nothing to the debate. I'll continue letting your posts through as long as they're civil and productive, but you're on moderation for now.
Austin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
I hope this person is blocked from posting again here. Utterly inappropriate.
He's on moderation, which means each of his posts to the list will be held and must be approved individually. As a rule, we don't like to outright ban people, or use moderation punitively.
Austin
Hi Tobias
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Tobias church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear all,
right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community) to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of speculation.
I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
Here's what I think might have happened:
James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic and collective voice to the outside. These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, wish to wait with giving out more information.
.....
I second your thoughts on the most probable root cause for the current dysfunction, having experienced similar events with various chapters as well, where at least some members particularly with chapters lack the professional/corporate experience and just get elected because of their wikipedian experience. This does call for a better definition of board member election eligibility rules at the chapters and WMF.
It is surprising that there does not seem to be well thought out induction program for new members with one of the experienced board member as a mentor. If there was such a process and implemented well, the present problem could have been nipped in the bud or managed better.
Best wishes Arjuna Rao Chavala
Tobias wrote:
James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic and collective voice to the outside. These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community, wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust. The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership, and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James, being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation, so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from the board.
This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what they perceive is incorrect.
Thank you for taking the time to post this summary. It's very well-written and I think it appropriately captures what most likely happened, given the available evidence. As for action items, I see:
* evaluate whether the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws should be changed to make it more difficult (or easier) to remove a Board of Trustees member;
* strongly urge the Board of Trustees to be more transparent and communicative, embracing the values that keep our projects running; and
* evaluate the process for filling community-selected Board of Trustees seats, perhaps changing the seats to be community-elected.
Obligatory reference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law!
MZMcBride
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org