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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;Datet;Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:10:11 To: &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 141, Issue 104 Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner(a)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 &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CALKX9dQc9PDXSWOixWPYMZBOjgagTEiB0hwTZ=HVWPys6NU= YQ(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAH7nnD1W3NzvgPkVm=VWU9Gvb+_SvH= E0fcj95mmAOhCeRNhcQ(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;thogol(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAL0e-KWJ6L= L4BF4Fhp9OogppEQCBFp_+SXeuOEQtJPnp1jgTA(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;nawrich(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: in member made revealing then ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:02:24 -0300 From: Anna Torres &lt;de(a)wikimedia.org.ar&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Argentina Memorial 2015 Message-ID: <CAGOz6s2zsonRp3=-BGfVmWEc08CdE1t75M= at5EkL3mv2U_x3A(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CAF=dyJjegoDF4nrUizCSs+RhfQ_HWM54V= 23zVZWdvA2mzjvKg(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board Message-ID: <CACf6BesausXMnn40D8OTP+kiaZvDE01MS3i+synN= 1WVUMtQnQ(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: that more level public, but that to not a meetings evolves. ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>