02.05.2016 5:22 AM "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> napisał(a): You must have missed the announcement that he stepped down from the Board. and have I posted three items that we're changing in the future recruitment process quite quickly. Currently we have an ongoing discussion on how to reform the Board composition, and I hope we will be able to have an open conversation about these ideas soon (read: before Wikimania). I'm sure that some people would like the WMF to be more like a Telekom. I don't think that corporate standards and procedures are the answer, and I really would like the WMF to be what it was meant to be: a mission-driven, knowledge organization in NGO/open-source environment, run by passionate employees in a strong, community- and staff- friendly culture, that delivers visionary results. We're far from there yet, but following Telekom standards is not the answer. The WMF should improve by all means, and it also should be more accountable - but this is why this year it returns to the FDC process (which has been one of my priorities to increase communal control), and that should provide sensible community's feedback. Dj

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm not sure if it is typical for the bodies such as Board to issue official apologies - but for my part, I definitely apologize for all shortcomings of the procedure I've been involved in, mistakes in oversight, etc. Again, you seem not to have noticed that we nearly immediately amended the recruitment procedure in a way that will make repeating a mistake unlikely. How governance works? In fact, it would be nice to have this conversation as well, sure. The problem is that there are multiple demands from the community, and there are also external needs for the Board to address. We're out of bandwidth. Is the governance talk top priority now? Maybe. But I'm not convinced that it is more important than the ED search, or the expert seat fulfilment, or comments on strategy/plan, better enculturation and on-boarding of external Board members, and so on. Well, not engaging with a person who clearly assumes extremely bad faith is a privilege I'm going to exercise. Feel free to keep on writing of course, just excuse me for not getting involved in replies to you in this thread for a while. responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are You are correct - the BGC recommended Arnnon, and I personally had not found about the controversy when I was reviewing his files. I stated this on the list, admitted the mistake, as well as tried to understand and explain how it happened. I also proposed the changes to the future recruitment process, which have been introduced. My understanding is that I'm still in this position, as the Board has assumed that this mistake was systematic, not personal. However, I am not tied to my seat, or to my presence on the Board. If the community recalls me, I will step down from either the BGC or the Board in general. cheers, dj

On 2 May 2016 at 15:17, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote: ... That's great. Please do the right thing and take the initiative to step down from the volunteer position of chair, so that someone with a history of excellent judgment on trustee governance can take the position. Ting Chen for example, the only trustee I can recall that walked away because he felt that trustees should not hold onto their seats indefinitely, a move that later resulted in trustee positions becoming time-limited. As for your presumptions about my bad faith, the current set of trustees are super glued to their trustee seats, despite the publicly excruciating results of the Geshuri vote of confidence and the recent factual revelations about Jimmy Wales' bullying behaviour that would result in expulsion, were he a representative from most other organizations. The WMF board can not rely on an /automatic/ presumption of good faith in the context of this terrible history, until they earn back the respect that their trustee positions deserve from the Wikimedia Community; especially the WMF trustees that nobody but fellow trustees got to vote on and have never been held to account. Thanks for your replies, even though you are dropping the mic on further discussion.[1] P.S. On Sydney's comment, yes Dariusz is a volunteer. There are WMF paid employees that support the committee that I would expect to do most of the hard work of drafting versions and collating research. A chair must be able to delegate, have a basic vision, and ensure that the right skills are present on the committee to deliver the targets as part of that vision/conceptual strategy. As for a new plan, I have not suggested a super duper detailed plan with schedules and gantt charts, I'm asking for the most simple commitments and meaningful deadlines in the process to get there. It's not rocket science, this could easily have been done within a couple of weeks of Geshuri's departure when it was most urgent and would have demonstrated that the board is actually interested in listing to the community, acting on their ethical failures even when they refuse to admit them in public, and doing a bit more than deflecting their critics. Links 1. http://news.sky.com/story/1687620/boom-queen-drops-the-mic-on-the-obamas Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Hoi, Really. We have had a rough patch where management and people in the WMF were at odds. We have a rough patch where people for all kinds of reason decide to no longer be a member of the WMF board. It is no wonder that things are not as they should be as a consequence. When you add the negativity out of much of the community re the work of the WMF. No is the default answer, negativity the standard attitude. I think the WMF given such circumstances does really well. When you want to stick to the facts, it is also how you present them. When 314 people vote, I find this almost an insignificant number given the size of our community. So from your position the glass is half empty, I see it is half full. I think it can only get better and that is not how I experience your position. In the mean time I do not see how the "community" helps in this. For the community the board is very much peripheral to the objective and imho too much is made of the board. As to Mr Geshuri he is not the only person who is no longer on the board. This whole notion of "understanding to the next decimal point" of what happened makes us a reactive organisation and to put it bluntly that is not what we need. We need an organisation that is proactive and that will only happen when there is some trust. This whole drive to get more "transparency" will only dig us a bigger hole. So do consider what it is that we are to achieve and what your role is. My role is simple, I want us to embrace approaches and technology that will particularly support the other languages. I want us to do a much better job at understanding what our readers are looking for and it may be well intentioned but the current approach will not improve things and will only constrain our ability to achieve our expressed goals. Thanks, GerardM On 2 May 2016 at 11:21, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next time. Anthony Cole On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) < nwilson(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

He isn't asking Dariusz to leave the board, but the position of chair of a particular committee on it. While I have no idea if this is called for either, it seems an important distinction. -I On 03/05/16 04:23, Anthony Cole wrote: