I would hope that the Board is now planning an executive transition for WMF. I would like to ask the Board to be transparent about this, including making timely posts to this mailing list and proactively posting documents and timelines on Meta and Commons.
I would hope that people skills, communications skills, and cultural fit are high on the list of priorities for the next executive.
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members. By human nature, people are suited to different roles, both in work and in volunteer leadership capacities. It seems to me that Lila and at least some Board members have interests, skills and abilities that could be beneficial in other organizations or in different roles in the Wikimedia movement. Having the courage to change is far from the end of the world; Arrnon did it, a number of staff members are doing it, and I hope that Lila and at least some Board members will follow their example so that in the long run everyone will be in places that are good for them.
Also in the long run I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation and our volunteer community will emerge strong, resilient, healthy, and vibrant.
Pine
On 16-02-22 02:08 PM, Pine W wrote:
Also in the long run I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation and our volunteer community will emerge strong, resilient, healthy, and vibrant.
I've not always agreed with you, Pine. Not often, in fact.
But in this I think you will find broad agreement and a strong rallying cry.
I think staff and volunteers will always be a little at odd with each other - even as they are part of each other. I wore both hats, in a way even before I was staff - and will always be a little of both even when not employed by the WMF. But, in the end, we're just working different tacks to the same heading.
Regardless of how this resolves - and it /will/ resolve - the movement will perdure and we'll forge on because we all share that vision.
-- Marc
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
I can only speak for myself here, but I'm really not tied to my position :) If there is a clear signal from the wider community that I should step down, I will. I'm not sure how this should work (obviously, there should be some practical balance between a valid concern of a community at large, and just a couple of people seeking disruption - which I'm not saying is the case here, just thinking about not creating a precedence), but all in all, the voice of the community should be heard, and especially in the case of community-elected seats - treated with utmost respect.
I believe that the community (including our staff) is the source of our competitive advantage. Not tech (great as it may be), not content (great as it is, but free to take). If this very community decides that I have failed in my role, or even that I have not, but there is a common perception that my continued tenure will not advance the movement, that's the way to go.
I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board step-down though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.
dj
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
I can only speak for myself here, but I'm really not tied to my position :) If there is a clear signal from the wider community that I should step down, I will. I'm not sure how this should work (obviously, there should be some practical balance between a valid concern of a community at large, and just a couple of people seeking disruption - which I'm not saying is the case here, just thinking about not creating a precedence),
Dariusz,
I think any steps that can be taken preemptively -- that is, steps that avoid the need for broad community deliberation about who should step down and who shouldn't -- would be most welcome. It seems rather clear to me that whatever Trustees led the charge on the actions that have caused strife are the ones whose departure would be the most beneficial. I suppose I, like others, have some opinions about who those Trustees might be, but I very much hope we are all spared the need to share our speculations (especially because those of us outside the Board have very limited information about its internal workings).
I believe that the community (including our staff) is the source of our
competitive advantage. Not tech (great as it may be), not content (great as it is, but free to take). If this very community decides that I have failed in my role, or even that I have not, but there is a common perception that my continued tenure will not advance the movement, that's the way to go.
Thank you for articulating this principle. I won't comment on specific Trustees here, but I do think that genuine participation (demonstrating good listening, in addition to sharing views) in public forums is a great asset in a Trustee, and some have exhibited that quality better than others.
I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board step-down
though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.
I agree that this is not a step to be taken lightly, and may not be needed here. But given the extent of current problems, I wouldn't rule it out entirely. It would of course have to be accompanied by a *very* strong plan, *very* well vetted and communicated, for next steps. It is possible, for instance, for current board members to continue to serve the movement by sharing their knowledge (privately and/or publicly), without necessarily having the authority of a voting position.
One thing that I hope is under careful consideration is the value of a seat reserved for an individual (whether enshrined in the Bylaws or in tradition). If Jimmy Wales were to stand for election, I am confident he would win; but I think that method of getting on the board would be better than Founder's Seat as an institution (as long as it doesn't come at the expense of an existing community seat).
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I don't want to suggest the Board resign en masse today or anything like that; that would be overly catastrophic and dramatic, make recovering harder, hurt the people involved all around worse, etc.
I think we are getting more about what happened from Board perspectives. That is very much appreciated.
The fixes will require why and how it happened.
If the answers to those indicate that the board's job description and skills needs changed, or other issues then you need to fix those either with training and growth or with new members.
You (we all) need to understand what the board's requirements and capabilities need to be. Don't randomly change membership without knowing what is needed and whether new Trustees help solve that.
If you individually don't see yourself able to match those needs after they are articulated, I hope the Board members do the right thing for the movement and replace themselves with people who do.
Thank you.
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
I can only speak for myself here, but I'm really not tied to my position :) If there is a clear signal from the wider community that I should step down, I will. I'm not sure how this should work (obviously, there should be some practical balance between a valid concern of a community at large, and just a couple of people seeking disruption - which I'm not saying is the case here, just thinking about not creating a precedence), but all in all, the voice of the community should be heard, and especially in the case of community-elected seats - treated with utmost respect.
I believe that the community (including our staff) is the source of our competitive advantage. Not tech (great as it may be), not content (great as it is, but free to take). If this very community decides that I have failed in my role, or even that I have not, but there is a common perception that my continued tenure will not advance the movement, that's the way to go.
I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board step-down though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.
dj _______________________________________________ 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
Pine W <wiki.pine@...> writes:
I would hope that the Board is now planning an executive transition for WMF. I would like to ask the Board to be transparent about this, including making timely posts to this mailing list and proactively posting documents and timelines on Meta and Commons.
+1. Numerous staff members have publicly asked the the ED to step down or be removed. The situation at this point is obviously unsalvageable. Even if things were to magically turn around tomorrow and start going in the right direction, this series of threads would be the new seeds of discontent. Even if everyone says they'll forgive and forget, no one really forgets who called for them to be fired.
It shouldn't take a public staff revolt for an ED to be removed from the board. It shouldn't have lasted past the internal staff revolt months ago. The only way to start healing the org is to start moving forward.
- Ryan
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
Sydney User:FloNight
I absolutely agree with Sydney. Clearly something should be done, but it doesn't need to happen right away - the servers will still be on for the time being. Better to make an eventual informed decision than rush into something right now, and potentially regret the consequences afterwards.
Adrian Raddatz
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
Sydney User:FloNight
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 22 February 2016 at 22:00, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
I also agree with Sydney, and will point out that in the past year, we have had brand new board members in 3 board-selected seats (one of whom only participated for a few weeks), and 3 community seats (two of whom remain in place, the third being replaced by a former board member. That is at least five new members in a single year, no matter how one cuts it - and it doesn't even take into consideration the ongoing process for chapter-selected seats.
This past year has already seen the largest turnover in board membership that the Foundation has ever experienced; it was unusual to have more than two seats change incumbents in all the past years. We have already seen very significant change in the make-up of the Board, and half the board is still learning the ropes and responsibilities. This level of change is likely to be at least partly responsible for some of the unfortunate situations we have seen in the last several months. But those who are seeking a new board...well, you already have one.
Risker/Anne
It is in cases like this that an advisory board could/should be an asset. I hope the board could reach out to one or more participants in that group for additional help and advice.
Regards, Thyge
2016-02-23 5:41 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On 22 February 2016 at 22:00, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
I also agree with Sydney, and will point out that in the past year, we have had brand new board members in 3 board-selected seats (one of whom only participated for a few weeks), and 3 community seats (two of whom remain in place, the third being replaced by a former board member. That is at least five new members in a single year, no matter how one cuts it - and it doesn't even take into consideration the ongoing process for chapter-selected seats.
This past year has already seen the largest turnover in board membership that the Foundation has ever experienced; it was unusual to have more than two seats change incumbents in all the past years. We have already seen very significant change in the make-up of the Board, and half the board is still learning the ropes and responsibilities. This level of change is likely to be at least partly responsible for some of the unfortunate situations we have seen in the last several months. But those who are seeking a new board...well, you already have one.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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
Le 23/02/16 04:00, Sydney Poore a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
Sydney User:FloNight
+1.
Most of the board is actually rather new. Plus two members will possibly (probably) change next summer. So asking for resignation is absolutely not the right thing to do at the moment. We need the current members to stick here. We need stability.
I will openly say that I am completely disappointed by the lack of (official) communication from the board in the past couple of weeks (or months). I thank Dariusz very much for maintaining a line of contact here.
But otherwise... I'd say we need to let the board do its job.
And we should rather reflect on how we can HELP them do that.
I think it is helpful for the board that the community AND the staff give their frank opinion about what is going on so as to help them see clear.
I think Molly timeline might be helpful for the board to get a better grip of the important keypoints and opinions.
I think providing private insights to the board if relevant might be helpful.
I think dropping them a private email to ask them if they are ok and giving them a bit of wikilove might be helpful.
And probably other things.
Anthere
I appreciate the many constructive comments in this thread. I wish that we knew that the Board was having similar discussions, and that these discussions were transparent.
I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board
step-down
though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.
Agreed. My choice of the term "transition plans" was carefully considered. I agree with several of the comments made above in this thread regarding the Board and options for an orderly Board transition in the next several months. Perhaps some of those transitions will involve replacing some of the newer board members with former board members who have valuable experience and who have demonstrated knowledge with how we work in WMF and the Wikimedia community to create positive change.
To clarify some thoughts about Lila:
For the record, I think I too may have had a part in the selection of Lila for ED. I advocated for someone with private sector performance-management perspective to be brought into WMF. At the time I didn't appreciate that this might create a culture clash with our values and practices regarding transparency, communications, and community participation. I feel like I share part of the blame for my advocacy at the time, which in hindsight should have been more carefully nuanced.
Based on nonpublic communications, I believe that Lila generally has good intentions, and I would like her to feel good about things that have gone well while she has been here. For example, the community consultation regarding PC&L, and also the plans for re-imagining grants. We are also seeing some exciting developments in Analytics and revision scoring, the "big English" fundraiser in late 2015 went well, and there seems to be strong community support for WMF taking legal and technical steps to protect our editors and readers from mass surveillance.
I have heard allegations that some of the information about the Knight grant as presented to the public were intentionally deceptive. I have *not* seen evidence, in public or private, that yet convinces me that there was any intent to deceive. On the other hand, communications, planning, and transparency regarding the Knight grant were deeply problematic, to the point where WMF Board members and staff seemed to be confused and were themselves uncertain about what the right answers were.
Going forward, I believe that the staff of WMF and the larger Wikimedia community would be best served with new leadership in the executive director role. The retention of skilled staff, the relations with donors such as Knight, and the handling of strategic, financial, and product planning in an orderly and transparent manner are all important roles for the ED.
I hope that Lila and the Board will ponder the points raised in this thread and many others, as well as the information in this *Signpost *commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report and in http://mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/. It seems to me that the leadership at WMF simply must change, and that Lila and the Board would act in the best interest of WMF by making transition plans.
Pine
I don't really know Lila at all, and I've not been paying an awful lot of attention to all of this until recently, when my former manager Siko Bouterse resigned. This act alone, plus her email rang alarm bells that things with the WMF aren't going great. The subsequent resignation of others (including today, Oliver Keyes, whom I also have much respect for) is quite concerning. I worked for WMF for 6 months as a Community Fellow back in 2012, and for a long period of time always wanted to work there again. It felt like a great place to work. While I recently applied for a role and was unsuccessful, recent events have made me feel that cannot maybe I dodged a bullet.
Lila's current position cannot one that anyone wants to be in. I am reminded of the recent appointment and subsequent resignation of Arnon Geshuri, where one way or another, he realised that all the discussion around him was a distraction for the community. It's not my place to say (or really, anyone's except the BoT) but I would hope that Lila would consider whether it is really in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the community in general to stay on as the ED, given the loss of significant key staff, for a multitude of reasons, and the significant distraction and "drama" this has caused. I would respectfully suggest that it might be time to step aside.
Best,
Steven Crossin (formerly Steven Zhang) Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Feb 2016, at 3:41 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the many constructive comments in this thread. I wish that we knew that the Board was having similar discussions, and that these discussions were transparent.
I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board
step-down
though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.
Agreed. My choice of the term "transition plans" was carefully considered. I agree with several of the comments made above in this thread regarding the Board and options for an orderly Board transition in the next several months. Perhaps some of those transitions will involve replacing some of the newer board members with former board members who have valuable experience and who have demonstrated knowledge with how we work in WMF and the Wikimedia community to create positive change.
To clarify some thoughts about Lila:
For the record, I think I too may have had a part in the selection of Lila for ED. I advocated for someone with private sector performance-management perspective to be brought into WMF. At the time I didn't appreciate that this might create a culture clash with our values and practices regarding transparency, communications, and community participation. I feel like I share part of the blame for my advocacy at the time, which in hindsight should have been more carefully nuanced.
Based on nonpublic communications, I believe that Lila generally has good intentions, and I would like her to feel good about things that have gone well while she has been here. For example, the community consultation regarding PC&L, and also the plans for re-imagining grants. We are also seeing some exciting developments in Analytics and revision scoring, the "big English" fundraiser in late 2015 went well, and there seems to be strong community support for WMF taking legal and technical steps to protect our editors and readers from mass surveillance.
I have heard allegations that some of the information about the Knight grant as presented to the public were intentionally deceptive. I have *not* seen evidence, in public or private, that yet convinces me that there was any intent to deceive. On the other hand, communications, planning, and transparency regarding the Knight grant were deeply problematic, to the point where WMF Board members and staff seemed to be confused and were themselves uncertain about what the right answers were.
Going forward, I believe that the staff of WMF and the larger Wikimedia community would be best served with new leadership in the executive director role. The retention of skilled staff, the relations with donors such as Knight, and the handling of strategic, financial, and product planning in an orderly and transparent manner are all important roles for the ED.
I hope that Lila and the Board will ponder the points raised in this thread and many others, as well as the information in this *Signpost *commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report and in http://mollywhite.net/wikimedia-timeline/. It seems to me that the leadership at WMF simply must change, and that Lila and the Board would act in the best interest of WMF by making transition plans.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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