Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
Alice and Arnnon,
Thank you for your recent messages and your efforts to grapple with these issues. I have two questions which have been much discussed; perhaps you can provide clarification, so we can better understand the process?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Kelly and Arnnon were ... selected as finalists
Was it the entire Board, or a committee of the Board, or a committee including Board members and other people who did that selecting? And if it was a committee, how many finalists did the entire Board consider for the two open seats?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Hi Alice,
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand that you want full information, but please also note that the conversation in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a backroom.
After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there always will be a next time.
Best, Lodewijk
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
-- 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
Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board. Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal and the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35411208, and have made it to the front page of Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/42r7t3/wikipedia_editors_revolt_vote_no_confidence_in/. This has gone beyond diminishing the staff's and community's trust in the board and is now damaging the image of the entire movement. The idea that "Wikipedia is something special" where integrity and transparency are priorities has attracted editors, donors, and employees. Let's not lose that.
-Elliott
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Alice,
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand that you want full information, but please also note that the conversation in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a backroom.
After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there always will be a next time.
Best, Lodewijk
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the
board
are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on
their
expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates
and
people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response,
and
we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
-- 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 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
May I ask a question: Do you think it's ethical to ignore community demand for an explanation or a statement for *three weeks *and then issue a statement just within *three hours* after the story publishes in BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208 ? Is publicity and public image of WMF BoT is this important to you comparing to what community asks?
Note: the BBC story has published in "2016-01-26T18:10:21+00:00" UTC. You can check when the statement has issued.
I really really want to be mistaken, please tell me I'm mistaken
Best
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:50 AM Elliott Eggleston eeggleston@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board. Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca < http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedi...
and the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35411208, and have made it to the front page of Reddit < https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/42r7t3/wikipedia_editors_revolt...
.
This has gone beyond diminishing the staff's and community's trust in the board and is now damaging the image of the entire movement. The idea that "Wikipedia is something special" where integrity and transparency are priorities has attracted editors, donors, and employees. Let's not lose that.
-Elliott
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Alice,
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
give
a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I
hope
it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand that you want full information, but please also note that the
conversation
in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a
backroom.
After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there always will be a next time.
Best, Lodewijk
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you
have
raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the
board
are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we
needed
support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning,
and
human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on
their
expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates
and
people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response,
and
we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
-- 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 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 Lodewijk,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give a clear time table for further updates.
let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to follow up with an update in a week or less.
best,
dj
I hope that the Board will make clear in its longer statement that the value of competence is an unacceptable trade for the value of integrity, and will explain how the Board reconciles the history of this trustee with the values of WMF and the Wikimedia movement. Personally, I have great difficulty that any such reconciliation can be made.
Pine
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi Lodewijk,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
give
a clear time table for further updates.
let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to follow up with an update in a week or less.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi Lodewijk, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
give
a clear time table for further updates.
let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to follow up with an update in a week or less.
I hope that you follow through with this plan, and give us a post-mortem in a week's time. --scott
Indeed, Steinsplitter, they are 'buying time' hoping they can sweep everything under the rug within a week, unfortunately for them, a few news sites have picked up on the drama including BBC....Arrnon may have step down, but the issue is still there, what's to stop WMF from hiring another person like him in the near future? The community cannot keep voting to remove board and staff members, We don't want it to come to a situation where the community decides to get rid of the 'foundation' for the betterment of the community..
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
I don't understand neither Arnnon nor the rest of the Board.
At the best, one month of this situation means one year less of your lives because of stress. If Arnnon reaches Wikimedia Conference, every day will take a year of your lives.
Admitting that you did something wrong is human.
To be honest, I don't think all of you, including Arnnon, are stubborn. You are likely thinking you are choosing between two bad things.
I read Arnnon's email and he convinced me. I mean, I am quite convinced he could be quite good Board member exactly because of his problematic background, as he would care much more what he is doing. But he didn't convince 90% of Wikimedians. And that matters.
Just leave it. It's easier for everybody and it's right decision to say "We are sorry, we did it wrong.". If some of you care about reelection, it's wise to show human face. If you care about WMF's integrity, Wikimedia movement is WMF's integrity. And Arnnon could avoid the title of the most hated WMF Board member ever.
Or you really want to wait for Wikimedia Conference? Not to talk about Wikimania.
Alice, et al
Ars Technica have now reported on Arnnon's statement, and your statement.[1]
Their previous article[2] touches on the Meta discussion.
Le Monde has also published an article on this debacle,[3] as a result of the original Ars Technica piece.
Please take the time to read the comments. People are already cancelling their regular donations to the Foundation in response to Arnnon's appointment to the BoT.
Forget about "Wikimedians" for a moment. ^ ^ (John Q Public) are the people you have to convince that Arnnon is worthy of being a WMF Trustee. As you can see from many of the comments, the public thus far does not believe he is.
Given the Ars Technica article has led to the BBC, Le Monde, etc picking up on the story, I'm not really sure you have the ability to delay a full explanation for another week, as this is possibly going to blow up in your faces long before then.
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/wikimedia-board-official-responds... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedi... [3] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/01/26/une-motion-de-defiance-contr...
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alice Wiegand awiegand@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
-- 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 am not satisfied at all by this update. I have the feeling the Board want to wait until the community cools down. The boar was very fast in kicking out James for no obvious reason. But for removing Arnnon Geshuri (per community consensus, after a lot of drama) weeks are needed. The Board and all other Functionary positions only exist because the community has written articles etc. Now you, the Board, want ignore the community? Seriously? I have the feeling that the WMF is some sort of a autocracy right now. WMF schould be democratic. The community is not trolling the WMF, they simple care about wikimedia projects.
Geshuri must be removed from the Board ASAP. Community consensus to do so exists. Again: Please don't ignore the community.
--Steinsplitter
From: awiegand@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:14:07 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board
Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members, considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process, reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and people, and supported their progress as finalists.
We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
Alice.
-- 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