I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best
I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.
I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that any story of “James sticking it to the evil Board” or of “James as the knight in the shining armour, fighting against the tyranny represented by the Board, the Board’s secrecy and malfeasance” will be hard or impossible to dispel. Also, although I am an elected Board member, I am regularly being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer - Google - anyway. So how much of what I could say, could really have an effect on anyone?
But let’s get to the gist of the story: why the heck was James removed?
James actually already said very clearly why he was removed: “My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me . . . .” Indeed, the vast majority of the Board lost their trust in James' ability to fulfill the duties and obligations of a Board member without overstepping his charter and being an effective and cooperating member of the Board.
I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, not a healthy situation.
At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter. James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I disagreed with him on this point.
So what were our options at this point? How should we have handled this unfortunate situation? Should we simply sideline James in all conversations where the lack of trust or following process is an issue? But if we do so, sure, all of it would be quieter, and the community and the outside world would likely never notice anything - but I would have an even bigger issue with that: if we sidelined a community-elected Board member for basically their whole term, would the community-elected members truly be sufficiently represented on the Board according to the spirit of the bylaws? This didn’t seem like an adequate solution to me.
I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives me hope in this Board.
I saw that James wrote an email where he lists three things he was supposedly accused of. At least for me, his list does not reflect the reasons why I voted for his removal. Indeed, in the last few days on the Board, James apologized to the Board for his previous behaviour. It was that stated behavior underlying that apology that served as one reason why I voted as I did. I do not know why James changed his view on these reasons in the days before and after the vote.
Based on some of the comments I have read, I wanted to explicitly address these rather, say, interesting conspiracy theories, from my perspective:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more transparency. -- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion about the strategy of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because of difference in opinion or disagreement about the governance of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because he was insisting to see some documents that the Board was withholding from him -- James was not removed from the Board because any third party wanted him removed (like a big pharma company who was unhappy with James on the Board and was promising a big donation if he is gone - I am just listing this because it was indeed mentioned.) -- James was not removed from the Board because he demanded more community input or was fighting for NPOV. -- James’ removal had nothing to do with the role and composition of community-elected vs appointed Board members. -- James was not removed from the Board because he dared to ask too many uncomfortable questions. -- James was not removed because he didn’t want to sign an NDA.
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused disruption. He sure was not the only Trustee who made mistakes - I also did - but, in my opinion, he was by far the least cooperative Trustee when the Board worked hard to fix them. The thing that bothers me most is James' claim that he was kicked out because of a disagreement about how transparent the Board should be. This is simply not true. I voted for his removal because, in my opinion, he was *not* transparent and cooperative with his fellow Board members.
To make it explicit, I believe that James almost always acted in what he thought was in the best interest for our community. I qualify this statement solely because I am not sure about whether his early disclosure of his dismissal was in the best interests of the movement; in my opinion, in this case emotion appeared to have won over. But based on my term on the Board, I believe that all Trustees have acted in what they believe is in the best interest of the Foundation or the movement.
Why did it have to happen on such a short notice? Because two members of the Board, Jan-Bart and Stu, were leaving the Board by the end of last year. We found it completely unfair to burden the new members with such a decision. It had to be the Board that was actually working with James in the last six months.
It was, for me, a very painful decision, one, I was tormented over for a few days, and one that I did not take lightly. I do not care at all about a possible reelection, and thus I do not care about making popular decisions, I solely care about deciding what is, for my own conscience, the best decision for the long term of the Board, of the Foundation, of the movement, and our mission. I remain convinced that James is a very productive Wikipedian who has done a lot of good things for our movement, which makes this decision so much more painful.
I don’t expect anyone to just move on. This came, for most of you, very unexpected. You did not have the repeated discussions and the background on this matter. I merely wanted to illustrate how things look from my point of view and opinion. My largest disappointment is the amount of time and effort spent on this, instead of working on the actually interesting things, on reaching more people, and enabling more people to share in the sum of all knowledge. I understand that some of you will demand more explanations and/or more changes. But I wonder what kind of changes would be required to avoid a situation like this - if the rest of the Board loses the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
To all those using the Gregorian calendar, have a happy new year 2016. I am sorry for the drama this has caused, and I wish that this decision would have never been necessary.
Denny
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Denny for your email. We understand there was "lack of mutual trust", and the Board acted accordingly. What I personally don't understand is *why* there was lack of mutual trust, what were the actions/words/deeds, from James side, that created this situation.
Apparently, neither James knows what he did: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Aubrey
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.
I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that any story of “James sticking it to the evil Board” or of “James as the knight in the shining armour, fighting against the tyranny represented by the Board, the Board’s secrecy and malfeasance” will be hard or impossible to dispel. Also, although I am an elected Board member, I am regularly being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer
- Google - anyway. So how much of what I could say, could really have an
effect on anyone?
But let’s get to the gist of the story: why the heck was James removed?
James actually already said very clearly why he was removed: “My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me . . . .” Indeed, the vast majority of the Board lost their trust in James' ability to fulfill the duties and obligations of a Board member without overstepping his charter and being an effective and cooperating member of the Board.
I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, not a healthy situation.
At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter. James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I disagreed with him on this point.
So what were our options at this point? How should we have handled this unfortunate situation? Should we simply sideline James in all conversations where the lack of trust or following process is an issue? But if we do so, sure, all of it would be quieter, and the community and the outside world would likely never notice anything - but I would have an even bigger issue with that: if we sidelined a community-elected Board member for basically their whole term, would the community-elected members truly be sufficiently represented on the Board according to the spirit of the bylaws? This didn’t seem like an adequate solution to me.
I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives me hope in this Board.
I saw that James wrote an email where he lists three things he was supposedly accused of. At least for me, his list does not reflect the reasons why I voted for his removal. Indeed, in the last few days on the Board, James apologized to the Board for his previous behaviour. It was that stated behavior underlying that apology that served as one reason why I voted as I did. I do not know why James changed his view on these reasons in the days before and after the vote.
Based on some of the comments I have read, I wanted to explicitly address these rather, say, interesting conspiracy theories, from my perspective:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more transparency. -- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion about the strategy of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because of difference in opinion or disagreement about the governance of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because he was insisting to see some documents that the Board was withholding from him -- James was not removed from the Board because any third party wanted him removed (like a big pharma company who was unhappy with James on the Board and was promising a big donation if he is gone - I am just listing this because it was indeed mentioned.) -- James was not removed from the Board because he demanded more community input or was fighting for NPOV. -- James’ removal had nothing to do with the role and composition of community-elected vs appointed Board members. -- James was not removed from the Board because he dared to ask too many uncomfortable questions. -- James was not removed because he didn’t want to sign an NDA.
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused disruption. He sure was not the only Trustee who made mistakes - I also did
- but, in my opinion, he was by far the least cooperative Trustee when the
Board worked hard to fix them. The thing that bothers me most is James' claim that he was kicked out because of a disagreement about how transparent the Board should be. This is simply not true. I voted for his removal because, in my opinion, he was *not* transparent and cooperative with his fellow Board members.
To make it explicit, I believe that James almost always acted in what he thought was in the best interest for our community. I qualify this statement solely because I am not sure about whether his early disclosure of his dismissal was in the best interests of the movement; in my opinion, in this case emotion appeared to have won over. But based on my term on the Board, I believe that all Trustees have acted in what they believe is in the best interest of the Foundation or the movement.
Why did it have to happen on such a short notice? Because two members of the Board, Jan-Bart and Stu, were leaving the Board by the end of last year. We found it completely unfair to burden the new members with such a decision. It had to be the Board that was actually working with James in the last six months.
It was, for me, a very painful decision, one, I was tormented over for a few days, and one that I did not take lightly. I do not care at all about a possible reelection, and thus I do not care about making popular decisions, I solely care about deciding what is, for my own conscience, the best decision for the long term of the Board, of the Foundation, of the movement, and our mission. I remain convinced that James is a very productive Wikipedian who has done a lot of good things for our movement, which makes this decision so much more painful.
I don’t expect anyone to just move on. This came, for most of you, very unexpected. You did not have the repeated discussions and the background on this matter. I merely wanted to illustrate how things look from my point of view and opinion. My largest disappointment is the amount of time and effort spent on this, instead of working on the actually interesting things, on reaching more people, and enabling more people to share in the sum of all knowledge. I understand that some of you will demand more explanations and/or more changes. But I wonder what kind of changes would be required to avoid a situation like this - if the rest of the Board loses the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
To all those using the Gregorian calendar, have a happy new year 2016. I am sorry for the drama this has caused, and I wish that this decision would have never been necessary.
Denny
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
2016-01-07 15:44 GMT+01:00 Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org:
if the rest of the Board loses the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
Well, why not make a public notice to the community that there are such issues, and let everyone have a public discussion, with that member, the rest of the board, and the interested parts of the community who elected said member, where everyone can ask questions and talk about the issues that are on the table? (Of course that would be suitable only for community-(s)elected members of the board.)
Then a few weeks after the discussion and after you read/heard the input from the community, you can still hold a vote for or against removal. But that would be a more transparent process. And you wouldn't lose anything with it.
Th.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more transparency. -- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion about the strategy of the Foundation.
Denny, you say James was not removed from the board because he demanded more transparency, or because of a difference in opinion on strategy.
However, there are glaring issues of transparency around the Knowledge Engine project, which does signal a major strategic shift. Nobody in the community has to my knowledge seen the grant application, the grant agreement; nor do we know how and when this effort really started, who initiated it, what the envisaged end point is, and who all the stakeholders are that will profit from it.
All we can do is speculate – and I can think of third parties to whom data on user interactions with open content would be commercially very useful.
As mentioned previously, as long ago as last May someone like Risker, who looks at WMF spending, was perplexed just why so many resources were being devoted to Search and Discovery – resources whose deployment seems to cost far more than the published grant by the Knight Foundation will pay for: $250,000 is nothing compared to the costs of Search & Discovery, and a pittance compared to the $30+ million the WMF has just taken last month.
WMF spending on this means that resources are not available for other things, like measures to improve content quality, software improvements the community has asked for, and so forth. There has been no debate about this with the community.
The first Knight Foundation announcement of funding for the Knowledge Engine[1] predates the official grant announcement by more than four months.
This is absolutely baffling to me. And it falls well within the period of when the board's troubles with James appear to have started.
The Knowledge Engine is an issue James has repeatedly raised on-wiki over the past few hours and days, on both Wikipedia and Meta, and I dare say but for the events of the past couple of weeks we would still not be talking about this even now.
What is and has been going on with the Knowledge Engine project, and why has there been so little transparency about it?
Its very strange to me to see a list of "James was NOT removed for X", as if that was sufficient and an adequate substitute for saying why he was actually removed. The problem with the Board is that they have taken this action without actually providing any real explanation. This problem appears to have been precipitated by Denny being hesitant to be forthcoming in an e-mail where James was a recipient, but no one has provided any reason for why this should be the case.
The bottom line for me is that if the WMF and the Board were seen as being successful and healthy in other respects this would be a relatively minor issue, but there is a widening perception that the Board and the WMF are *failing*. The projects are carried by volunteers, but the perception of the WMF by those volunteers and others is increasingly that the WMF adds and has historically added little to the projects beyond operational maintenance.
Those of us who voted for James did so in part because of his history as a forthright, outspoken activist and volunteer - attributes which we thought might shake up the board and push the WMF to produce more value for the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent. Now that he has been kicked off, its hard to escape the possibility that he attempted to do so and was ejected as a result. Nothing any member of the Board has said has been able to shake that possibility.
07.01.2016, 14:44, "Denny Vrandecic" <email clipped>:
<text clipped for brevity>
And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him.
<text clipped for brevity>
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused disruption. He sure was not the only Trustee who made mistakes - I also did
- but, in my opinion, he was by far the least cooperative Trustee when the
Board worked hard to fix them.
<text clipped for brevity>
Wow. Tough stuff, Mr. Vrandecic.
May I ask who among the trustees raised the motion to eject Dr. Heilman? Have the board minutes been published?
Really, I personally am not disturbed that James was ejected from the board. I know him mainly from his wholehearted support of the mass-bannings and erasures related to the Orangemoody investigation, which I regard as a thorough sham that falsely maligned Bangladeshi editors as "cyber racketeers" when they just did some constructive paid editing (which is not forbidden by policy) in order to put food on their families' tables. I find him unduly suspicious and incredible dogmatic regarding those accusations, as well as regarding the corporate medical interests he takes sides against.
But as a matter of transparency, which everybody is saying the board is all about, I'd like to know which trustee raised the motion to get rid of Jim.
Trillium Corsage
PS: I hope surely after Denny's terribly harsh comments above, my email is not disallowed from the mailing list for its relatively light criticism of James.
Denny,
Your message is detrimental to someone I consider a friend, a trusted colleague, and an asset to the Wikimedia movement. While I concede there may be relevant information I don't know, I see two good reasons to view with great skepticism your assertion that you were "unconvinced that [something] would be held in confidence" by Doc James. I do not fault you for your beliefs, but based on the information I have, it seems that the actions you took based on those beliefs were ill-advised, and harmful to WMF, to the Wikimedia movement, and to my friend and colleague.
My first point is based on my personal experience: I have known Doc James for a number of years; we have had multiple discussions, some of which have involved significant disagreements, and have involved information I might consider best kept confidential. I have never doubted his integrity in respecting my wishes, or in keeping a promise. I have never had reason to regret my confidence in him.
The second point is based on evidence that has come forward in recent days. The English Wikipedia Signpost just published data from a recent staff survey that shows extraordinarily low confidence in senior WMF leadership;[1] and the WMF and Knight Foundations just published information about a restricted grant, which apparently signals a shift in strategy taking place behind closed doors.[2]
As a Trustee, Doc James would surely have been aware of both issues, weeks or months ago. Various recent discussions suggest that he believed that both issues should be brought to the attention of the Wikimedia community. And yet, HE DID NOT PUBLISH THEM.
I believe he would have been well within his rights as a Trustee to do publish them; I believe he would not have broken the law, the bylaws, the directives in the Board Handbook, or the commitment to support the organization by doing so. His appointment as a (note the word itself) "Trustee" represents a rather explicit trust in him (from both the community and the Board members who unanimously approved him) to make judgments on subjects like that. The fact that he declined to speak publicly about them demonstrates, I believe, the level of importance he placed in the wishes of his fellow Trustees. It is difficult for me to imagine any other reason he would decline to act based on his conscience.
Note, the Signpost talks about its sources in its story. The grant, of course, was announced through official channels.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_a... [2] http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/press-release/wikimedia-foundatio...
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.
I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that any story of “James sticking it to the evil Board” or of “James as the knight in the shining armour, fighting against the tyranny represented by the Board, the Board’s secrecy and malfeasance” will be hard or impossible to dispel. Also, although I am an elected Board member, I am regularly being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer
- Google - anyway. So how much of what I could say, could really have an
effect on anyone?
But let’s get to the gist of the story: why the heck was James removed?
James actually already said very clearly why he was removed: “My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me . . . .” Indeed, the vast majority of the Board lost their trust in James' ability to fulfill the duties and obligations of a Board member without overstepping his charter and being an effective and cooperating member of the Board.
I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, not a healthy situation.
At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter. James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I disagreed with him on this point.
So what were our options at this point? How should we have handled this unfortunate situation? Should we simply sideline James in all conversations where the lack of trust or following process is an issue? But if we do so, sure, all of it would be quieter, and the community and the outside world would likely never notice anything - but I would have an even bigger issue with that: if we sidelined a community-elected Board member for basically their whole term, would the community-elected members truly be sufficiently represented on the Board according to the spirit of the bylaws? This didn’t seem like an adequate solution to me.
I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives me hope in this Board.
I saw that James wrote an email where he lists three things he was supposedly accused of. At least for me, his list does not reflect the reasons why I voted for his removal. Indeed, in the last few days on the Board, James apologized to the Board for his previous behaviour. It was that stated behavior underlying that apology that served as one reason why I voted as I did. I do not know why James changed his view on these reasons in the days before and after the vote.
Based on some of the comments I have read, I wanted to explicitly address these rather, say, interesting conspiracy theories, from my perspective:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more transparency. -- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion about the strategy of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because of difference in opinion or disagreement about the governance of the Foundation. -- James was not removed from the Board because he was insisting to see some documents that the Board was withholding from him -- James was not removed from the Board because any third party wanted him removed (like a big pharma company who was unhappy with James on the Board and was promising a big donation if he is gone - I am just listing this because it was indeed mentioned.) -- James was not removed from the Board because he demanded more community input or was fighting for NPOV. -- James’ removal had nothing to do with the role and composition of community-elected vs appointed Board members. -- James was not removed from the Board because he dared to ask too many uncomfortable questions. -- James was not removed because he didn’t want to sign an NDA.
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused disruption. He sure was not the only Trustee who made mistakes - I also did
- but, in my opinion, he was by far the least cooperative Trustee when the
Board worked hard to fix them. The thing that bothers me most is James' claim that he was kicked out because of a disagreement about how transparent the Board should be. This is simply not true. I voted for his removal because, in my opinion, he was *not* transparent and cooperative with his fellow Board members.
To make it explicit, I believe that James almost always acted in what he thought was in the best interest for our community. I qualify this statement solely because I am not sure about whether his early disclosure of his dismissal was in the best interests of the movement; in my opinion, in this case emotion appeared to have won over. But based on my term on the Board, I believe that all Trustees have acted in what they believe is in the best interest of the Foundation or the movement.
Why did it have to happen on such a short notice? Because two members of the Board, Jan-Bart and Stu, were leaving the Board by the end of last year. We found it completely unfair to burden the new members with such a decision. It had to be the Board that was actually working with James in the last six months.
It was, for me, a very painful decision, one, I was tormented over for a few days, and one that I did not take lightly. I do not care at all about a possible reelection, and thus I do not care about making popular decisions, I solely care about deciding what is, for my own conscience, the best decision for the long term of the Board, of the Foundation, of the movement, and our mission. I remain convinced that James is a very productive Wikipedian who has done a lot of good things for our movement, which makes this decision so much more painful.
I don’t expect anyone to just move on. This came, for most of you, very unexpected. You did not have the repeated discussions and the background on this matter. I merely wanted to illustrate how things look from my point of view and opinion. My largest disappointment is the amount of time and effort spent on this, instead of working on the actually interesting things, on reaching more people, and enabling more people to share in the sum of all knowledge. I understand that some of you will demand more explanations and/or more changes. But I wonder what kind of changes would be required to avoid a situation like this - if the rest of the Board loses the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
To all those using the Gregorian calendar, have a happy new year 2016. I am sorry for the drama this has caused, and I wish that this decision would have never been necessary.
Denny
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board...
Best
James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia Signpost just published data from a recent staff survey that shows extraordinarily low confidence in senior WMF leadership;[1] and the WMF and Knight Foundations just published information about a restricted grant, which apparently signals a shift in strategy taking place behind closed doors.[2]
As a Trustee, Doc James would surely have been aware of both issues, weeks or months ago. Various recent discussions suggest that he believed that both issues should be brought to the attention of the Wikimedia community. And yet, HE DID NOT PUBLISH THEM.
Doc James James has just said[1] on Talk:Jimbo Wales,
---o0o---
Documents concerning long term strategy were not kept from me in the end. Others were. And yes I was asked to keep the long term strategy documents secret after suggesting they be made more widely known and discussed. I have kept the documents secret.
---o0o---
This underscores Pete's point. James is still keeping those documents secret -- even now that he has left the board.
So, dear Trustees, can *you* please walk the transparency walk, rather than pulling up the drawbridge, and show the community the long-term strategy documents that James was asked to keep – and still is keeping – secret, in line with your wishes?
Or do we have to wait until the singularity arrives and machines tell us because human beings don't have the *guts*?
Please present to the community a full and open account of
- the long-term strategy, including the Knowledge Engine, - what underlies it, - the related grant applications and grant agreements, and - the discussions with industry partners that preceded this project?
Or are there any non-disclosure agreements with third parties that limit what you can say in public? Then at least tell us that.
Lastly, do you have any idea what damage – hour by hour – you are doing to this movement with your secrecy?
Please do not *dare* to speak of the Wikimedia Foundation's "transparency" until you have demonstrated it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=69...
Denny, there was very little substantive content in your email. As with the explanation from other trustees, this too, has the same markings of subterfuge and evasionary tactics. It has been established beyond doubt that there were "trust" issues. Repeating it or any variation thereof by another board member will not be helping the situation.
You and others constantly mention trust issues as a pre-condition, and describe situations arising from it. The glaring omission each time there is about how and why? - What did he do to lose this trust in such a short period? Did he leak sensitive information to another party or the media? Did Google, Facebook and all the Pharma companies demand his removal as tribute? Did he post the location of a super secret hideout or the location of the holy grail itself? Because the longer this is going on, the more creative the conspiracies are getting.
This brings us to the issue of trust. Trust is mutual, the community trusted you and James in an election to represent them on the board, the board lost trust in James, currently, the community is losing trust in the board itself. So how should this situation be handled? Offer the board the same options or talk through the issue? Deafening silence from the board and senior staff who know and hope this blows over, will not repair the damage here, things like this keep piling up under the rug and have to addressed.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, not a healthy situation.
Actually no, there aren't enough facts to agree on anything. The constant loss of "trust" does not translate well to all the uninformed parties. The gist above is, you had to write a private email to the board, and you rewrote it because you didn't trust James.
At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter. James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I disagreed with him on this point.
This sounds like you were the one who brought up the motion of his dismissal or at least initiated the discussion. I also don't know why you keep thinking James agreeing to a resignation would have been better or he should have consented at all? He was trusted and elected to this position. Without knowing the other facts, his decision so far seems logical.
I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives me hope in this Board.
This opinion might be in the minority. The "community fallout" that was expected is a big unknown risk. It is bringing up a lot of other issues, perhaps conflating a few, forming wild conjectures, all the while two new trustees are joining the board, we have the 15th anniversary around the corner, the strategic plan is going to be discussed/published soon, not to mention the fundraiser just wrapped up. It is at the least, a bad start to the new year.
if the rest of the Board loses
the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
Better than this. It should have taken more effort than this to just remove an elected trustee. The board and WMF consult with many professionals on a range of issues. Perhaps some sort of mediation or consultation about this issue could have happened, even involving third parties. At the least, some sort of a hint or a public mention about the disagreements would have been helpful for the community.
The more important question now is, if the rest of the community loses trust in the board, how should the community handle it?
Regards Theo
I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and I appreciate their attempts to address this issue. As a new member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is frustrating when we cannot release the information that shows that those decisions are clearly justified. So sometimes we have to say "trust us". Perhaps this is the situation here. Perhaps there is something James did, or perhaps the clash of personalities was too much. So they may have to do the same here and say "trust us"
However, for the community to have that trust, there has to be accountability and transparency in other areas. Members of the Arbitration Committee are known to the community and voted in by them, while most members of the Board are not accountable to the community in any way. The Committee does as much as it can transparently and is as forthcoming as it can be with public deliberations. The Board and the Foundation are not sufficiently transparent about things like the Knowledge Engine, and don't have a great track record with things like Superprotect. There are also concerns that Silicon Valley and the technology sector are over-represented on the board, while much of what the community and the Foundation supposedly represent - the entire world as opposed to the Global North, the open source community, cultural and knowledge institutions that work with GLAM, academia - are barely or not represented at all. So when you say "trust us", and you haven't addressed those issues, it's difficult to just accept what vague assurances are provided about this matter.
Gamaliel (speaking for myself only and not the Arbitration Committee)
Denny, regarding "I am regularly being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer - Google", I've never seen that absurd claim and certainly haven't made it myself. In a comment at The Signpost and here I've asserted that you have a fatal conflict of interest, being on the payroll of Google.
Do you recuse from any board discussions and decisions that might, broadly construed, affect Google commercially?
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and I appreciate their attempts to address this issue. As a new member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is frustrating when we cannot release the information that shows that those decisions are clearly justified. So sometimes we have to say "trust us". Perhaps this is the situation here. Perhaps there is something James did, or perhaps the clash of personalities was too much. So they may have to do the same here and say "trust us"
However, for the community to have that trust, there has to be accountability and transparency in other areas. Members of the Arbitration Committee are known to the community and voted in by them, while most members of the Board are not accountable to the community in any way. The Committee does as much as it can transparently and is as forthcoming as it can be with public deliberations. The Board and the Foundation are not sufficiently transparent about things like the Knowledge Engine, and don't have a great track record with things like Superprotect. There are also concerns that Silicon Valley and the technology sector are over-represented on the board, while much of what the community and the Foundation supposedly represent - the entire world as opposed to the Global North, the open source community, cultural and knowledge institutions that work with GLAM, academia - are barely or not represented at all. So when you say "trust us", and you haven't addressed those issues, it's difficult to just accept what vague assurances are provided about this matter.
Gamaliel (speaking for myself only and not the Arbitration Committee) _______________________________________________ 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 Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago, I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me. And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James' being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many will agree, not a healthy situation.
At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board - James included.
Denny, you seem to be acknowledging that you initiated Doc James's removal. I think your email will strengthen calls for a review.
I'm troubled that the decision was rushed through, over the holidays with James in Japan, because two board members who supported his removal were leaving.
The removal has caused a loss of trust in the board. Does this idea of a "knowledge engine" have anything to do with it; was James denied access to documents; and so on. People are completely perplexed at this point. How do we fix this?
Sarah
On 07/01/16 06:44, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more transparency.
I'm inclined to believe James at this point, since he is the only one giving a credible explanation of causes. If he was not dismissed for this, then why was he dismissed?
That he lost the confidence of the board is obvious, a truism.
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused disruption.
Which process? What advice? What disruption?
Are you afraid he will sue you for libel? Tell the truth: I believe that is a defence in US law, as is fair comment on a matter of public interest. I will donate to your legal costs if he does sue you.
People willing to talk to the public get to influence public opinion. That is an appropriate reward for transparency.
But I wonder what kind of changes would be required to avoid a situation like this - if the rest of the Board loses the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
By putting personal sensitivities aside and acting in the common good. I support the power of the board to act quickly and decisively to protect the mission, but not without public review. To act in such a way without public review is contrary to the Guiding Principles.
-- Tim Starling
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org