I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan) 2. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ) 3. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer) 4. Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres) 5. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W) 6. Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500 From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU=YQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves.
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000 From: Fæ faewik@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH=E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes played out.
Fae
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100 From: Thomas Goldammer thogol@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: CAL0e-KWJ6L=L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there, and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
Th.
2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves. _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300 From: Anna Torres de@wikimedia.org.ar To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 Message-ID: CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M=at5EkL3mv2U_x3A@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear all,
Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual Memorial 2015 http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/ regarding WMAR programs and activities.
In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main programs and actions taken during 2015.
Hope you all enjoy it!
Hugs and happy new year!
I don't think it's a "silly idea" to immediately notify 1800+ voters that they've been overruled by 8 people. I think it's something the Board should've been prepared to do at once, with a full and complete rationale. Instead, we keep hearing patronizing "Oh, we'll give you more information sometime", with no indication of just when "sometime" might be.
Under the bylaws, James' removal was allowed, and if those comply with Florida law (which, above, is somewhat doubtful) was legal. That doesn't mean justified. It's legal for me to go around calling people horrible names, but that's not appropriate or justifiable just because I have the legal right to do it.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM, olatunde isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
- Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500 From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU= YQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves.
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000 From: Fæ faewik@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH= E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes played out.
Fae
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100 From: Thomas Goldammer thogol@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAL0e-KWJ6L= L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there, and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
Th.
2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning
in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board
member
fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be
made
about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for
revealing
that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and
then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves. _______________________________________________ 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
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300 From: Anna Torres de@wikimedia.org.ar To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 Message-ID: <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M= at5EkL3mv2U_x3A@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear all,
Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual Memorial 2015 http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/ regarding WMAR programs and activities.
In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main programs and actions taken during 2015.
Hope you all enjoy it!
Hugs and happy new year!
-- Anna Torres Adell Directora Ejecutiva *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V= 23zVZWdvA2mzjvKg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public, but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
Pine
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100 From: Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN= 1WVUMtQnQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly. It may also be that it was disastrous.
transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with 'quick', as was pointed out by some.
Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal) membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often say that incidents make bad policy.
At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large also makes a different organisational structure.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items
that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in
public,
but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does
that
can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself
to
similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
not a
sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
evolves.
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
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
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 Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting... He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting. After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't have done the same in his place.
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board. The board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn good reason is a significant error. To be honest, since the motion to remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out. I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in the Wikimedia movement. And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable. Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished Wikipedian. Doc James is one of the most active contributors to Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as James.
Best, KG -sent from mobile.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
override
the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
where
the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
in
Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
will
probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting... He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting. After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't have done the same in his place. _______________________________________________ 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
Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board. The board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn good reason is a significant error. To be honest, since the motion to remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out. I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to be quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in the Wikimedia movement. And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation where the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable. Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board out of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished Wikipedian. Doc James is one of the most active contributors to Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and it's concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian as James.
Best, KG -sent from mobile.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing
as
at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
override
the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
where
the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote
of
the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth
in
Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
are
likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and
will
probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
his
removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
the
board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a meeting... He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board meeting. After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't have done the same in his place. _______________________________________________ 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
"For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them. We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I have trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
The
board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will of two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn good reason is a significant error. To be honest, since the motion to remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising that board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out. I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
be
quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust in the Wikimedia movement. And if doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
where
the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable. Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
out
of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I would hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending the time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished Wikipedian. Doc James is one of the most active contributors to Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia Canada and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
it's
concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
as
James.
Best, KG -sent from mobile.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
ongoing
as
at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is
a
silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
override
the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament
where
the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
vote
of
the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
forth
in
Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based
on
this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James
are
likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it
and
will
probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported
his
removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from
the
board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a
meeting...
He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board
meeting.
After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We don't know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I wouldn't have done the same in his place. _______________________________________________ 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>
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>
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>
James,
We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a man of coherent and consistent principles.
I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in the geographies most impacted.
I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My thoughts are with you.
Warmly, /a
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
"For cause" can mean a lot of things - everything from getting drunk and plowing in to a crowd to embezzling money, to simply holding consistently different opinions than the rest of the board and continually voicing them. We won't know much more until the board statement (although, again, I'm surprised comms weren't pre-prepped,) but this is a really surprising situation, and I really hope the board makes a clear statement that justifies the removal beyond a shadow of a doubt.
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo, on his talk page, says this was a removal "for cause", and that he expects the whole Board will provide a further statement.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
As far as I can tell, no one alleges Doc James did anything wrong - if there were serious allegations of wrongdoing then, for one thing, I
have
trouble seeing Dariusz as having supported James staying on the board.
The
board *can* remove members for any reason, but if you're removing one member elected - and generally quite trusted - from the board, and that removal is opposed by *another* community elected board member, there better be a damned good reason behind it - board *can* ignore the will
of
two of the three directly elected trustees, but doing so without a damn good reason is a significant error. To be honest, since the motion to remove James was clearly prepared in advance, I'm pretty surprising
that
board didn't ask WMF comms for help preparig to deal with the fall-out. I've been told by multiple sets of people that this doesn't involve allegations of wrongdoing against James - but if it does, that needs to
be
quickly communicated, as James holds multiple other positions of trust
in
the Wikimedia movement. And if doesn't involve allegations of
wrongdoing
by James... well to be honest, I have a hard time seeing a situation
where
the removal of James (a community elected trustee) which was opposed by Dariusz (another community elected trustee) is reasonably justifiable. Without more details about the situation, it really reads like a board
out
of touch with the community it is intended to serve.
Unless an extraordinarily good reason is produced (like James regularly shouting things Cluebot would censor in the middle of meetings,) I
would
hope that the board would consider reinstating James... and spending
the
time to learn how to work with with a respected and accomplished Wikipedian. Doc James is one of the most active contributors to Wikiproject Medicine, is a long time former president of Wikimedia
Canada
and the Wiki Project Med Foundation, and has done a ton of other wiki-stuff. It's hard to see him as a detriment to the WMF board, and
it's
concerning that the first time the WMF board has ever felt the need to remove a member it was a member as awesome a human being and Wikimedian
as
James.
Best, KG -sent from mobile.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac <
reachout2isaac@gmail.com javascript:;>
wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still
ongoing
as
at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It
is
a
silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or
override
the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a
parliament
where
the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority
vote
of
the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set
forth
in
Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”.
Based
on
this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected
James
are
likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it
and
will
probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why
his
remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence
supported
his
removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected
from
the
board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
He didn't use his phone to mail to the list while sitting in a
meeting...
He was dismissed from the board and then ejected from the board
meeting.
After he left the room as ordered, he posted the notification. We
don't
know all the precise circumstances, but I couldn't guarantee I
wouldn't
have done the same in his place. _______________________________________________ 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>
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>
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>
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
I just want to echo this.
James, I do know you personally, and am better for it. Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve information and health around the world, and for the thought you give to how the projects can flourish and multiply.
Warmly, Sj
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
James,
We’ve never spoken. I don’t know you personally, but I do know your reputation throughout the movement. It is stellar. You are reported to be a man of coherent and consistent principles.
I am writing to thank you for your years of service and your amazing contributions to the projects thus far. I was so impressed with the work that you've done on "ebola content" and translating it for the languages in the geographies most impacted.
I don’t know what happened, but this has to be difficult for you. My thoughts are with you.
Warmly, /a
Given the timing (less than a month after the last Board Meeting), and some of the comments at Jimbo's talk, it seems likely that a special meeting was called with the question of dismissing James from the Board as a major (and perhaps only) topic. However, no one has explicitly said if this was a special meeting or whether there were any other topics on the Agenda.
Based on James statements, after the vote he was also ejected from the meeting. Presumably if the Board wanted to discuss a joint statement or communication strategy then they could have asked him to stay for that purpose. No one has said whether there was any discussion of creating a joint statement prior to this going public, though Jimbo said that he wishes that James had waited to make the announcement "in a time and manner that both his perspective and that of other board members could be presented fully". James also said that he had been encouraged to resign for several weeks, so this clearly wasn't something that occurred as an emergency with no opportunity to plan at all.
If the Board wanted a joint announcement and James refused, that would be interesting. If the Board wanted a joint announcement but neglected to discuss that with James before ejecting him from the meeting, then that suggests poor handling by the Board.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM, olatunde isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting or override the decision of the board of trustee. The WMF BoT is not a parliament where the house do not have the veto power to remove an elected member. Section 7 (remover) of the WMF's bylaws clearly stipulated that “Any Trustee may be removed, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees then in office in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 617.0808(1), or other relevant provisions of the Act”. Based on this bylaw, James remover is justified! I understand that majority of the community members who elected James are likely not to be aware of this provisions but James is aware of it and will probably have an answer to (1) the reason for his remover (2) why his remover was supported by eight members and (3) why the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, lost confidence supported his removal. The fact that James never stated the reasons why he was ejected from the board as at the time he disclosed his remover is worrisome. James, I'm sorry if I'm too factual here.
Best,
Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Nathan)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Fæ)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Thomas Goldammer)
- Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 (Anna Torres)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Pine W)
- Re: Announcement about changes to the Board (Lodewijk)
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:44:38 -0500 From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU= YQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board member fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be made about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for revealing that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and then told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves.
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:33 +0000 From: Fæ faewik@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH= E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I'm sure that board members would have preferred for the WMF Chairperson to make a statement, rather Jimmy publishing personal opinions as "facts".
The comments about James are disappointing for many reasons, but should be given appropriate weight... probably a lot less weight than James' own comments, in the light of how several past WMF political non-successes played out.
Fae
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:47:29 +0100 From: Thomas Goldammer thogol@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAL0e-KWJ6L= L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for the decision. If you make such a sweeping decision, even if not planned ahead at all, you do have the obligation to sit down together immediately and write that statement - you know that there is that community out there, and you knew very well what would happen on this mailing list. And it's really not as if you were a magician who was asked to explain his trick.
Th.
2015-12-30 15:44 GMT+01:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning
in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the responsibilities of board members to uphold those values. If a board
member
fails the community in such a serious way, tough decisions have to be
made
about what to do.--Jimbo Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#top) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
Comment from Jimmy, both implicitly criticizing James Heilman for
revealing
that he was ejected from the board and suggesting that James failed to uphold the values of the community in a serious way. Later on Jimmy tries to walk back the criticism as "merely stating a fact."
James responded by pointing out that he was removed from the board and
then
told to leave the room, at which point he posted to the mailing list. The complaint that he published the decision while the meeting was ongoing is silly, although I can certainly see why the remaining members would have preferred to control the narrative themselves. _______________________________________________ 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
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300 From: Anna Torres de@wikimedia.org.ar To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 Message-ID: <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M= at5EkL3mv2U_x3A@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear all,
Even though is in spanish, please find in the following link the Anual Memorial 2015 http://wikimedia.org.ar/memorial2015/ regarding WMAR programs and activities.
In there, you can find activities' descripctions and results for our main programs and actions taken during 2015.
Hope you all enjoy it!
Hugs and happy new year!
-- Anna Torres Adell Directora Ejecutiva *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:51:13 -0800 From: Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V= 23zVZWdvA2mzjvKg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public, but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
Pine
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:49 +0100 From: Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN= 1WVUMtQnQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly. It may also be that it was disastrous.
transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with 'quick', as was pointed out by some.
Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal) membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often say that incidents make bad policy.
At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large also makes a different organisational structure.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items
that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in
public,
but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does
that
can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself
to
similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
not a
sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations. Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
evolves.
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
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104
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