Patricio, thanks for the update.
I appreciate you and Lila informing the wikimedia movement now, before all of the details of the transition plan are complete.
As the BoT works on a transition strategy and plans for hiring a new ED, perhaps a member of the Board can take on the role of Chief Communicator.
Understandably, it is not always easy to know when to make announcements and updates to the wikimedia movement especially when plans are incomplete.
At this moment in time, a good communication strategy that keeps everyone regularly informed will help build a stronger bond between the WMF Board and the rest of wikimedia movement.
My thoughts are with you and the rest of the Board as you work through this situation.
Warm regards, Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Patricio Lorente < patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear friends,
This week, the Board of Trustees accepted Lila’s resignation. Her last day will be March 31, 2016.
I would like to thank Lila for her efforts over these past two years, and her passion for our shared mission. Together, we wish her the best in her future endeavors and accomplishments.
The Board of Trustees is meeting regularly to determine next steps. Our top priority is to develop a clear transition plan that seeks to build confidence with community and staff, appoint interim leadership, and begin the search for a new Executive Director. We will continue working closely together over the coming days, and will share an update next week.
This work will require extensive collaboration by the Board over the next few weeks. Although we know you’ll have questions, it is likely we’ll be very focused on planning the next steps. We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.
Patricio
TRANSLATION NOTE: This message is also posted on Meta at the Board Noticeboard for for translation. You can find it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/25_Fe... --
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not on the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is an enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Wishing you well always, Gayle
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Patricio, thanks for the update.
I appreciate you and Lila informing the wikimedia movement now, before all of the details of the transition plan are complete.
As the BoT works on a transition strategy and plans for hiring a new ED, perhaps a member of the Board can take on the role of Chief Communicator.
Understandably, it is not always easy to know when to make announcements and updates to the wikimedia movement especially when plans are incomplete.
At this moment in time, a good communication strategy that keeps everyone regularly informed will help build a stronger bond between the WMF Board and the rest of wikimedia movement.
My thoughts are with you and the rest of the Board as you work through this situation.
Warm regards, Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Patricio Lorente < patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear friends,
This week, the Board of Trustees accepted Lila’s resignation. Her last
day
will be March 31, 2016.
I would like to thank Lila for her efforts over these past two years, and her passion for our shared mission. Together, we wish her the best in her future endeavors and accomplishments.
The Board of Trustees is meeting regularly to determine next steps. Our top priority is to develop a clear transition plan that seeks to build confidence with community and staff, appoint interim leadership, and
begin
the search for a new Executive Director. We will continue working closely together over the coming days, and will share an update next week.
This work will require extensive collaboration by the Board over the next few weeks. Although we know you’ll have questions, it is likely we’ll be very focused on planning the next steps. We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.
Patricio
TRANSLATION NOTE: This message is also posted on Meta at the Board Noticeboard for for translation. You can find it here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/25_Fe...
--
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
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 wanted to explicitly state that a number of us are reading intensively many of the ideas suggested in a diversity of channels, including this mailing list.
We are hearing you.
We cannot reply to all of them, as we simply lack the bandwidth. But we are listening.
Thank you for your passion.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com wrote:
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not on the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is an enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Wishing you well always, Gayle
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Patricio, thanks for the update.
I appreciate you and Lila informing the wikimedia movement now, before
all
of the details of the transition plan are complete.
As the BoT works on a transition strategy and plans for hiring a new ED, perhaps a member of the Board can take on the role of Chief Communicator.
Understandably, it is not always easy to know when to make announcements and updates to the wikimedia movement especially when plans are
incomplete.
At this moment in time, a good communication strategy that keeps everyone regularly informed will help build a stronger bond between the WMF Board and the rest of wikimedia movement.
My thoughts are with you and the rest of the Board as you work through
this
situation.
Warm regards, Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Patricio Lorente < patricio.lorente@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear friends,
This week, the Board of Trustees accepted Lila’s resignation. Her last
day
will be March 31, 2016.
I would like to thank Lila for her efforts over these past two years,
and
her passion for our shared mission. Together, we wish her the best in
her
future endeavors and accomplishments.
The Board of Trustees is meeting regularly to determine next steps. Our top priority is to develop a clear transition plan that seeks to build confidence with community and staff, appoint interim leadership, and
begin
the search for a new Executive Director. We will continue working
closely
together over the coming days, and will share an update next week.
This work will require extensive collaboration by the Board over the
next
few weeks. Although we know you’ll have questions, it is likely we’ll
be
very focused on planning the next steps. We appreciate your patience
and
understanding during this time.
Patricio
TRANSLATION NOTE: This message is also posted on Meta at the Board Noticeboard for for translation. You can find it here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/25_Fe...
--
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
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
2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com:
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not on the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is an enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of the very constructive side conversations.
Warmly,
Erik
There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow, per Katherine Maher on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?c...
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com:
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not
on
the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is
an
enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of the very constructive side conversations.
Warmly,
Erik
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 was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is thrust into the position without the know-how?...
The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..
Cometstyles
On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow, per Katherine Maher on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?c...
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com:
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not
on
the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is
an
enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of the very constructive side conversations.
Warmly,
Erik
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
In order to avoid misunderstandings, would you please clarify what you mean with "fully vetted"? This term can mean so many different things, and I want to make sure. On Feb 26, 2016 05:32, "Comet styles" cometstyles@gmail.com wrote:
I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is thrust into the position without the know-how?...
The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..
Cometstyles
On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow, per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?c...
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com
wrote:
2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young gaylekaren@gmail.com:
I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff,
not
on
the staff, and not on Lila. I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there
is
an
enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in
moving
forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point onward.
Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of the very constructive side conversations.
Warmly,
Erik
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
-- Cometstyles
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Thank you Alice
I support that as a reasonable way forwards. Agree we have some great C-levels.
James
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ 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
Alice Wiegand wrote:
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Current Wikimedia Foundation "C-levels" based on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors:
* Lila Tretikov, Executive Director * Wes Moran, Vice President of Product * [vacant], Chief Technology Officer * Maggie Dennis, Senior Director of Community Engagement (Interim) * Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer * Geoff Brigham, General Counsel * Katherine Maher, Chief Communications Officer * Jaime Villagomez, Chief Financial Officer * Joady Lohr, Vice President of Human Resources (Interim)
Does the "C-level team" in this context include Lila and/or the interims?
My vote is for Geoff Brigham. There's precedent for the General Counsel to be interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, of course. And Geoff has been around long enough and is trusted to be a good steward of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think an outsider would be a good idea.
I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in this way. This action makes the Board of Trustees, already perceived as being weak, look even weaker, out-of-touch, and unprepared. You've known about general discontent with the Executive Director since November 2015 and you really weren't able, by March 2016, to figure out who would serve as interim Executive Director? This is almost derelict behavior.
I don't think anyone demands perfection from members of the Board of Trustees, but it is an actual commitment to an organization that has a very large budget and a large number of staff operating a fairly important set of Web properties. The fact that nine adults really didn't think through the consequences of "what comes next after the current Executive Director?" in order to come prepared with an answer to the most obvious question ("who will be the interim?") is pretty embarrassing and sad.
MZMcBride
There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
-- brion On Mar 4, 2016 7:07 PM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Alice Wiegand wrote:
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Current Wikimedia Foundation "C-levels" based on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors:
- Lila Tretikov, Executive Director
- Wes Moran, Vice President of Product
- [vacant], Chief Technology Officer
- Maggie Dennis, Senior Director of Community Engagement (Interim)
- Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer
- Geoff Brigham, General Counsel
- Katherine Maher, Chief Communications Officer
- Jaime Villagomez, Chief Financial Officer
- Joady Lohr, Vice President of Human Resources (Interim)
Does the "C-level team" in this context include Lila and/or the interims?
My vote is for Geoff Brigham. There's precedent for the General Counsel to be interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, of course. And Geoff has been around long enough and is trusted to be a good steward of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think an outsider would be a good idea.
I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in this way. This action makes the Board of Trustees, already perceived as being weak, look even weaker, out-of-touch, and unprepared. You've known about general discontent with the Executive Director since November 2015 and you really weren't able, by March 2016, to figure out who would serve as interim Executive Director? This is almost derelict behavior.
I don't think anyone demands perfection from members of the Board of Trustees, but it is an actual commitment to an organization that has a very large budget and a large number of staff operating a fairly important set of Web properties. The fact that nine adults really didn't think through the consequences of "what comes next after the current Executive Director?" in order to come prepared with an answer to the most obvious question ("who will be the interim?") is pretty embarrassing and sad.
MZMcBride
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 5 March 2016 at 03:21, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
In any case that doesn't change the fundamental problem. The only formal mechanism the wider community of editors has to control the activities of the foundation is via the nominal community seats on the board. Things in that respect are pretty bad. We've lost our apparently most effective member and the replacement is currently doing pet rock impressions.
In more recent times the only practical level of control the board has exercised is appointing the ED. If they are given that up the wider community no longer has any formal mechanisms of control left.
While that may not be the intent of the WMF employees it is where we are.
Brion Vibber wrote:
There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building. In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim roof is definitely needed pretty soon.
Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced in a professional and orderly way.
MZMcBride
Hoi, There is one big hole in this comparison. We are a movement, the Foundation is the material part of it. It is responsible for all kinds of everything but we, as a community do not pay for a roof over our head.
We are represented on the WMF board. That is it.
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation, they are not even represented. This whole fracas is largely about trust and relations between the employees and the ED. Other shit happened as well and as has been argued over and over again, much of that, particularly the "search" issue is not al all the issue.
Several people are so absorbed in their ideas of what the WMF should be that they lose sight of what we are about. We are not about the WMF. We are the Wikimedia Movement. The proposal is imho brilliant in that it puts trust in the employees. It recognises their ability to keep the ship afloat. When the "C-levels" (whatever that means) are indeed capable to do good we should rejoice and let them get on with it.
Going back to the analogy, when they keep the ship afloat and the employees are pumping, the water accumulated will get out of the ship. The weather forecast is positive, so the holes in the roof can be fixed for now, the engine can get emergency repairs and the ship can sail on towards its destination and if need be it may take a dry dock to fix things properly.
The best thing we can do is do as a movement is do what we are about. Build content, maintain relations in our community and not throw mines overboard in front of the foundation. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2016 at 16:54, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building. In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim roof is definitely needed pretty soon.
Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced in a professional and orderly way.
MZMcBride
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
Hoi, That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation, they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
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
A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff in SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways to do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender' of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect at Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually unionize together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the force would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of us in mind.
Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most beneficial thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of our issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this is one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not really help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so my opinion is mostly academic.
James User:Jamesofur [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
Foundation,
they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
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
Hi James,
just to understand correctly: are you talking only about the legal concept of a 'union' or also about all informal structures where the wmf staff could somehow influence how things go? I mean for example, I could imagine that in an organisation with more than 100 people, a representation of sorts outside the usual hierarchy might be imaginable and potentially beneficial. That representation could possibly be to the board, to the C-team or otherwise. Or are such structures already in existance (have been in existance)?
Lodewijk
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:51 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff in SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways to do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender' of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect at Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually unionize together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the force would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of us in mind.
Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most beneficial thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of our issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this is one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not really help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so my opinion is mostly academic.
James User:Jamesofur [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
Foundation,
they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
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
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
Hey Lodewijk,
I'm definetly talking about the legal concept of a union yeah (which triggers a lot of legal protections which, at least in the US, are somewhat assumed when people talk about organizing internally). I do think there are other options (both formal and informal) which is what I was referring to in the "There are other options I imagine" bit. As one example the staff asked for at least one non c-level staff member, chosen by the staff, to be on the ED search team and the board has suggested that would be accepted (Obviously it isn't done yet but it was acknowledged as a good idea in an all staff email). I think that's the first example of a more formal 'representation' for non c-level staff that I've seen in the almost 6 years I've been in WMF. Informally, of course, staff have been organizing over the past couple months at different levels trying to help us through difficult times.
[I should point out that I actually think our c-levels have been, and are, traditionally very good at representing the needs of the staff as a whole however having a lower level staff member representative, especially in times like this, is still very useful both for appearances/trust and for a different perspective then someone who would be a direct report]
James
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi James,
just to understand correctly: are you talking only about the legal concept of a 'union' or also about all informal structures where the wmf staff could somehow influence how things go? I mean for example, I could imagine that in an organisation with more than 100 people, a representation of sorts outside the usual hierarchy might be imaginable and potentially beneficial. That representation could possibly be to the board, to the C-team or otherwise. Or are such structures already in existance (have been in existance)?
Lodewijk
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:51 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff
in
SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways
to
do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender' of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect
at
Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually
unionize
together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the
force
would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of
us
in mind.
Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most
beneficial
thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of
our
issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this
is
one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not
really
help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so
my
opinion is mostly academic.
James User:Jamesofur [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
Foundation,
they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
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
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 05/03/16 19:45, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation, they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
Following the arguments that unions would would not fit, does Wikimedia UK allow unions? And other chapters with staff?
Gordo
Gordo ,
a) Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are free to join a union b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian countries, austria even swtizerland any worker (wage earning) is free to join a labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are syndicated , public servants are even over 90% syndicated
I would expect an organisation like Wikimedia to have an employee representation of a bout 1 representative for each 50 staff , that they are not represented on the board by a board-member is not a concern as long as there is a formal consultation and participatory platform at HR level where staff is represented in matters related to employment , working standards and practises, health and safety and where the board can liaise with staff
On 09-03-16 09:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 05/03/16 19:45, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation, they are not even represented.
Then they should unionise?
Gordo
Following the arguments that unions would would not fit, does Wikimedia UK allow unions? And other chapters with staff?
Gordo
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 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are free to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
You can ask the chapters if you want, but I doubt anyone can imagine a scenario where the answer is going to be anything but yes.
If a chapter or the WMF were (rather riskily) to refuse to officially recognize an employee's chosen union then processes such as https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers/overview apply and may be able to force recognition. However as employees will have the right to take an adviser with them to any meeting relating to a dispute over their own employment, even a small organization like WMUK that falls outside the legal regulations would find it impossible to keep union provided advisors out of the loop.
Fae
On 9 March 2016 at 12:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are free to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett
Hoi, It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union. The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell should a company be allowed to interfere in this. Thanks, GerardN
On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are
free
to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard. The reality is that, while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more unions to represent the same employees. In many parts of Canada and the U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to unionize the same employees. This is more commonplace when two companies are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different unions at the predecessor companies. And in many parts of North America, we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand non-unionized branches. Less than 12% of the United States workforce is unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees wish to unionize.
Risker/Anne
On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union. The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell should a company be allowed to interfere in this. Thanks, GerardN
On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are
free
to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work force, some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen would represent large special interest groups The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete for members is when they present candidates in social elections Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size) would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss those issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the unions would unite to represent the workforce. The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend nearly 2 dozen times last year
Derek
On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard. The reality is that, while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more unions to represent the same employees. In many parts of Canada and the U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to unionize the same employees. This is more commonplace when two companies are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different unions at the predecessor companies. And in many parts of North America, we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand non-unionized branches. Less than 12% of the United States workforce is unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees wish to unionize.
Risker/Anne
On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union. The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell should a company be allowed to interfere in this. Thanks, GerardN
On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are
free
to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
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
In Denmark, employees are entitled to elect representatives as members of the board of directors of incorporated companies with more than 35 employees. They are elected between the employees, and it is not depending on union participation.
Thyge
2016-03-09 18:22 GMT+01:00 Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be:
In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work force, some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen would represent large special interest groups The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete for members is when they present candidates in social elections Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size) would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss those issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the unions would unite to represent the workforce. The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend nearly 2 dozen times last year
Derek
On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard. The reality is that, while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more unions to represent the same employees. In many parts of Canada and the U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to unionize the same employees. This is more commonplace when two companies are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different unions at the predecessor companies. And in many parts of North America, we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand non-unionized branches. Less than 12% of the United States workforce is unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees wish to unionize.
Risker/Anne
On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union. The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell should a company be allowed to interfere in this. Thanks, GerardN
On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be
wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees are
free
to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
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
-- Kind regards, *Derek V. Giroulle* Wikimedia Belgium vzw. Treasurer Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels M: derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be T: +32 494 134134 F: +32 3666 2700 _______________________________________________ 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
Maybe it is better to take a step back at what we're trying to accomplish exactly, rather than discuss differences in how the labour market works in different countries (which is quite interesting in itself, but maybe not quite well placed on this list).
Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
In Denmark, employees are entitled to elect representatives as members of the board of directors of incorporated companies with more than 35 employees. They are elected between the employees, and it is not depending on union participation.
Thyge
2016-03-09 18:22 GMT+01:00 Derek V.Giroulle derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be:
In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work
force,
some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen would represent large special interest groups The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete
for
members is when they present candidates in social elections Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size) would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss those issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the unions would unite to represent the workforce. The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend nearly 2 dozen times last year
Derek
On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard. The reality is
that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more unions to represent the same employees. In many parts of Canada and the U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I
personally
have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to unionize the same employees. This is more commonplace when two
companies
are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different unions at the predecessor companies. And in many parts of North
America,
we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand non-unionized branches. Less than 12% of the United States workforce is unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees wish to unionize.
Risker/Anne
On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade
union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in
hell
should a company be allowed to interfere in this. Thanks, GerardN
On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle <
derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be>
wrote:
Wikimedia UK does have anything to say about unions its employees
are
free
to join a union
The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union; but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
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
-- Kind regards, *Derek V. Giroulle* Wikimedia Belgium vzw. Treasurer Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels M: derekvgiroulle@wikimedia.be T: +32 494 134134 F: +32 3666 2700 _______________________________________________ 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
b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian countries, austria even swtizerland any worker (wage earning) is free to join a labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are syndicated , public servants are even over 90% syndicated
I don’t know where this numbers came from, but thew look quite fancy, at least for the french-speaking country I know
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?lang=en&SubSessionId=385cb975-cc48-415a... http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?lang=en&SubSessionId=385cb975-cc48-415a-8fee-820f170255d7&themetreeid=13
Charles
We have three C levels who have been around for some time, Lisa, Katherine, and Geoff. I imagine that either one of them will step up and take on the role or a sharing agreement between a few of them will be suggested. I see either of those options as perfectly reasonable.
We have had a recent engagement survey which confirmed strong support from staff generally for these three. And I personally highly respect each of their abilities and have confidence that each of them will be able to bring greater stability to the WMF and the movement as a whole.
With respect to the "board removing the roof" analogy both the "tenants" ie staff as well as a number of those in the community generally were asking for said roof to be removed. Also the roof resigned with the board simply accepting her resignation.
The WMF is a steward of movement resources. Agree that clarifying this relationship can be done once an interim ED structure is in place. Do not have concerns with continued community discussion about the future though as these will likely take some months.
P.S. Have not specifically included the other C levels as they have been in their current positions for a shorter period of time. James
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:54 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building. In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim roof is definitely needed pretty soon.
Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced in a professional and orderly way.
MZMcBride
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 Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really
amateur mistake.
Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.
It is entirely a matter of priorities - is it more urgent to fix a situation that was causing serious unrest amongst staff, and was escalating quickly, or to compose a nice transition plan? You might disagree with the board's answer to that question, but there are more honest ways of criticizing it than attacking them for not doing everything at the same time.
Gergő Tisza wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really amateur mistake.
Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.
The roof didn't blow off in a storm; it was structurally unsound. We know this because roof repair has been in discussion for months. We know this because the old roof will be around until the end of March 2016. If the roof were really on fire, I think we would all hope for faster action!
It is entirely a matter of priorities - is it more urgent to fix a situation that was causing serious unrest amongst staff, and was escalating quickly, or to compose a nice transition plan? You might disagree with the board's answer to that question, but there are more honest ways of criticizing it than attacking them for not doing everything at the same time.
Respectfully, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here.
The board was aware of the issues with the roof since at least November 2015, as I understand it. Is four months really not enough time to develop a transition plan, not for a permanent replacement, but for an interim replacement for the roof? Nobody is saying that the Board of Trustees must do everything at the same time. But at some point in time, the board should exhibit some meaningful leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation.
MZMcBride
As much as I agree Geoff would probably do a wonderful job, I'm not sure that as a movement we want him away from the excellent job he's doing in the Legal team for too long. Call me cynical, but I expect that the term of the interim ED will turn out to be lengthy. Any number of people would make a good interim ED, but there are less people that would make a good head of Legal.
Cheers, Craig
On 5 March 2016 at 13:07, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My vote is for Geoff Brigham.
On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in this way.
There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best placed to give it is in some way "abdicating responsibility". And the other is that the board's objective should be to give off a "sign of strength". I think attempting to show strength is a pretty silly objective for a board to have, and I hope we never have that as our objective.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
On 3/5/16 3:07 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I don't see it as a sign of strength to abdicate your responsibility in this way.
There are at least two things I disagree with about this remark - one that seeking the advice and participation and buy-in of those best placed to give it is in some way "abdicating responsibility". And the other is that the board's objective should be to give off a "sign of strength". I think attempting to show strength is a pretty silly objective for a board to have, and I hope we never have that as our objective.
I'll try to better articulate my views.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director. What kind of confidence does this instill in employees, editors, and donors? How can you all call yourselves trustees of an organization that you're openly admitting that you all don't understand? Is that not crazy to anyone else?
It's not simply about strength and framing it as such misses the point: it's about leadership. It seems very worrying that when pressed to provide real and meaningful leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Board of Trustees passes the buck and erects smoke and mirror arguments such as "but we don't lead the Wikimedia movement!" Nobody is asking the Board of Trustees to lead the Wikimedia movement, you're being asked to manage the non-profit foundation to which you all pledged your support and care.
The Board of Trustees is clinically allergic to making decisions. It chooses to be a "traditional" non-profit board when it suits it, holding closed meetings accompanied by the barest possible meeting minutes, which are only published months later. However, when called to act with authority, as a traditional board might act, it demurs and points to everyone else as the people who should be making the decisions.
The working theory currently is that the Board of Trustees has always been weak, but that Sue covered or compensated for this weakness by taking on some of the responsibilities that a board would typically have. Drafting a Strategic Plan is probably the best example of this. This is very much a shared responsibility and yet we now sit outside of a Strategic Plan. It lapsed at the end of 2015 and no new plan has taken its place. What are the Wikimedia Foundation targets for 2020? How is it acceptable that neither the board nor the Executive Director have worked on this?
To be clear: I don't put much value in a colorful multi-megabyte PDF full of platitudes, smiling faces, and unrealistic goals. However, in talking with many people, the lack of strategy and vision (or in Lila's case, an ever-shifting strategy and vision) for the Wikimedia Foundation is one of the biggest and most often repeated concerns I hear. It's particularly alarming given the enormous budget of the Wikimedia Foundation.
MZMcBride
On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body has now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director.
No one, other than you, has said any such thing. I would argue that the decision to work with and trust the C level team to make a firm recommendation at this time is precisely being *in touch* with the needs of the organization at this time.
An out-of-touch board would dictate a particular decision without an empowering consultation with the most informed and relevant stakeholders. I'm glad we aren't doing that.
--Jimbo
On 3/9/16 2:29 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the foundation and appoints its Executive Director. It seems very worrying that this body
has
now admitted that it's so out-of-touch with the workings of the organization that it ostensibly manages that it cannot fulfill one of its most basic duties: appointing an interim Executive Director.
This seems to be partly a problem of communicating what's happening. The board is accountable for the result, and has final say. Replacing an ED is indeed the most important decision a board makes. Almost always after close consultation with senior staff.
In this case, the board and senior team have discussed succession planning since before Sue decided to leave; I'm sure that hasn't changed in the past months during this turmoil. My reading is that the board signalled publicly, to all staff, that in addition to those discussions (and the various plans or options known to already be on the table), it was explicitly going to give priority to the preference of senior staff. There has been a lot of gossip recently about whether or not the board is listening to whom, and how decisions are being made – so while this approach wasn't maximally smooth, it was very clear. And communicating this on wikimedia-l was a transparent update with the community.
We should have had a larger set of contingencies lined up, and a more explicit pipeline for new exec talent (either external or internal), while I was on the board. But this particular update seems sane and considerate. I would be happy to discuss past mistakes we can learn from, in a different thread.
Sam
Alice, thanks for the update.
I'm broadly hopeful; delegating with your staff's C level team is an excellent step I very much like to see happening.
I would very much like to make sure that communications lines open further between the board and their C levels and below, and that those continue to rebuild the health of the organization.
Define some boxes for us, just not alone. :) We're all in this together.
-- brion On Mar 4, 2016 6:15 PM, "Alice Wiegand" awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you, Alice, for the update.
As you say, the the C-level staff are in a good position to develop a transition plan based on their well informed knowledge of the organization. I'm looking forward to hearing their recommendation and the Boards announcement.
Everyone have a great weekend.
Warm regards, Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ 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
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Mar 2016, at 1:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
You might want to rewrite the Board manual then because it current reads, under the section The Role of the Board, Effective Board Oversight:
In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
- Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
I'm wondering how long till other responsibilities of the Board will be moved to C level managers.
Chris
On 5 March 2016 at 08:28, Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
- Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
I'm not a fan of this move, strategically speaking, as the trustees have painted themselves into a corner if they don't like what their C-levels suggest and they, say, then want to appoint someone with excellent experience in transforming organizations (or for that matter, boards of trustees) from outside as an interim. However appointing an interim CEO that your internal employees like, is not the same thing as appointing a CEO.
Fae
On 3/5/16 8:28 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
- Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather abrogating the responsibility of the Board.
I think you are misunderstanding. The Board will meet to discuss and approve the recommendation of the C-level managers. In order to properly carry out the Board's supervisory duties, we can and should take advice from those who are best situated. We have not transferred the legal right and responsibility onto the C-level managers - we have indicated to them that we trust that they will make a reasonable recommendation.
If, contrary to all expectations, they came back with a recommendation for Donald Duck or Donald Trump or some other cartoon character, we'd obviously refuse their recommendation as would be our fiduciary duty.
--Jimbo
Thank you Alice. I find this move pretty bold and welcome it, it renew with an old tradition ;)
Also many thnaks for sharing with us these kind of developments.
Cheers,
Delphine
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ 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 second Delphines praise.
I am also very glad to see that this being the fourth major decision taken by the Board this year (outing of James was done last year...) , and that they all have been very good and balanced. And even if valid wishes for quicker decisions is raised, I myself prioritize quality in the decisions before haste.
Anders
Den 2016-03-05 kl. 10:54, skrev Delphine Ménard:
Thank you Alice. I find this move pretty bold and welcome it, it renew with an old tradition ;)
Also many thnaks for sharing with us these kind of developments.
Cheers,
Delphine
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all, short update, as announced by Patricio:
Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in this situation.
Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize until the end of next week.
Alice.
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
-- Alice Wiegand Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ 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