With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these conversations IMO. With respect to "ignoring advice" I did use my own judgement. With respect to the "disruption" I do not feel I can take responsibility for the engagement survey results. I did bring staff concerns forwards to the board but I was simply reporting these concerns.
James,
all these things that you answered about - being out of process, disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words, those are yours.
Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was not sincere?
It was this apology of yours that gave me several sleepless nights - literally, unfortunately. It was this apology that let me regain most of the respect, and some of the trust I had lost. It was this apology that gave me hope that you might have finally understood.
And now you are here again, being defensive about these very issues? About nothing else in what I wrote, but merely about these things?
Please, tell me that you were sincere.
Denny
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these conversations IMO. With respect to "ignoring advice" I did use my own judgement. With respect to the "disruption" I do not feel I can take responsibility for the engagement survey results. I did bring staff concerns forwards to the board but I was simply reporting these concerns.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On January 8, 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued "a short statement on recent comments by James Heilman". For completeness' sake, I'm pasting the text of that statement into this thread.
--- Recently, James Heilman wrote, regarding his removal from the Wikimedia Foundation Board: "It had in part to do with me wanting there to be public discussion on our long term strategy." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=ne... &oldid=698553023 diff].
I wrote the following statement, which has been agreed to by the entire board at the time, names below:
"The removal of James as a board member was not due to any disagreement about public discussion of our long term strategy. The board unanimously supports public discussion of our long term strategy, has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term strategy with the community at any time, and strongly supports that the Wikimedia Foundation should develop long term strategy in consultation with the community."
* Dariusz Jemielniak * Frieda Brioschi * Denny Vrandecic * Patricio Lorente * Alice Wiegand * Guy Kawasaki * Jan-Bart de Vreede * Stu West * Jimmy Wales
I would like to add to this, speaking for myself only, that the loss of trust that I felt in James was in no small part due to this kind of statement on his part, in which the thinking of other board members is being misrepresented to the community and to the staff. James apologized to the board for certain actions which he has chosen not to share with the community, which is his right. He asked for a second chance, and the board declined to give it. My own preference, as expressed to him repeatedly, is that he live up to the values of honesty and transparency that are core to our community, and certainly that he not continue to misrepresent what happened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC) ---
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/698800759/698801403.
Obviously a single mailing list thread can't and won't capture all of the information related to this removal, but it seemed remiss to omit an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the subject, especially when we have already included a number of other statements from individual trustees and the Board in this thread.
MZMcBride
Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?
A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with people no one voted in decides to give a community selected board member the boot for reason which they supposedly 'cannot' reveal and they wonder why the community is pissed off at them?
The FAQ on James removal gives nothing away and the community will only accept an answer which they deem truthful, we have yet to get one.... You only dismiss board/staff members when they waste away millions on something which has no future (which they didn't) or if they steal..sorry but a BoT member talking to staff about an ongoing issue is not good enough a reason for removal..We will be celebrating 15 years of wikipedia soon, 9ish of those years were great, the last 6 years felt like an ongoing battle between the community and the bloated staff/board with forced changes to the wmf wikis and unexplained hiring, firings and wastage of money which we do not have...
Atleast those that have been in the project for a while now would fondly remember the good times on the wikis, back when bureaucracy did not play any part in changing the direction the project was heading.....so now i ask the one question we all have been pondering....When are the Google-ads coming?
On 1/10/16, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
On January 8, 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued "a short statement on recent comments by James Heilman". For completeness' sake, I'm pasting the text of that statement into this thread.
Recently, James Heilman wrote, regarding his removal from the Wikimedia Foundation Board: "It had in part to do with me wanting there to be public discussion on our long term strategy." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=ne... &oldid=698553023 diff].
I wrote the following statement, which has been agreed to by the entire board at the time, names below:
"The removal of James as a board member was not due to any disagreement about public discussion of our long term strategy. The board unanimously supports public discussion of our long term strategy, has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term strategy with the community at any time, and strongly supports that the Wikimedia Foundation should develop long term strategy in consultation with the community."
- Dariusz Jemielniak
- Frieda Brioschi
- Denny Vrandecic
- Patricio Lorente
- Alice Wiegand
- Guy Kawasaki
- Jan-Bart de Vreede
- Stu West
- Jimmy Wales
I would like to add to this, speaking for myself only, that the loss of trust that I felt in James was in no small part due to this kind of statement on his part, in which the thinking of other board members is being misrepresented to the community and to the staff. James apologized to the board for certain actions which he has chosen not to share with the community, which is his right. He asked for a second chance, and the board declined to give it. My own preference, as expressed to him repeatedly, is that he live up to the values of honesty and transparency that are core to our community, and certainly that he not continue to misrepresent what happened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/698800759/698801403.
Obviously a single mailing list thread can't and won't capture all of the information related to this removal, but it seemed remiss to omit an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the subject, especially when we have already included a number of other statements from individual trustees and the Board in this thread.
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 10/01/2016 04:04, Comet styles wrote:
Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?
A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with people no one voted in decides to give a community selected board member the boot for reason which they supposedly 'cannot' reveal and they wonder why the community is pissed off at them?
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James, presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the appointment of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James, presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the appointment of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a board member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
Cheers Yaroslav
On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James, presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the appointment of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a board member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so "Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on Google's payroll" would be less confusing.
As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished", well that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of major public interest, very polite even.
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that possible to discover from the public record in the USA?
Fae
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet gotten to "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually true at all at this point).
There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information our imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that, but it is rarely helpful.
James User:Jamesofur User:Jalexander-WMF
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to James, presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the appointment of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain civil. We do not have a Google appointed board member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a
board
member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google appointed, but community elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so "Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on Google's payroll" would be less confusing.
As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished", well that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of major public interest, very polite even.
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that possible to discover from the public record in the USA?
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 Alexander,
Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
Thanks, Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet gotten to "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually true at all at this point).
There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information our imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that, but it is rarely helpful.
James User:Jamesofur User:Jalexander-WMF
I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say that I do not.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James Alexander,
Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
Thanks, Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
for
question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet
gotten to
"Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
(for
the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually true at all at this point).
There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information
our
imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that,
but
it is rarely helpful.
James User:Jamesofur User:Jalexander-WMF
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 totally second James' invitation to avoid a certain tone, language and conspiracy theories. I will also add that the more those tone, language, and conspiracy theories are used in these threads, the *less* likely a good chunk of the community will participate in conversation.
If we really want to be open and inclusive, please remain civil, polite and constructive. Wikimedia-l is not a felt as a "safe space" and this is a huge problem: at least if we want meaningful, helpful, rich discussions.
This is not to say we do not have to clearly state what we think (and feel): but please, let us avoid (metaphorical) pitchforks.
Thanks.
Aubrey
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say that I do not.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James Alexander,
Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
Thanks, Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com
wrote:
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
for
question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line
of
thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet
gotten to
"Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters
in
it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
(for
the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't
actually
true at all at this point).
There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns
(in
many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just
no
good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought
as
sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know
it's
possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information
our
imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that,
but
it is rarely helpful.
James User:Jamesofur User:Jalexander-WMF
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 01/10/2016 11:16 AM, James Alexander wrote:
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring
I completely agree with you James. But, I do think that besides the specific concerns over Arnnon, an overrepresentation of Google-affiliated members in the board is a problem. Not because there is a conspiracy, but because it is a lack of diversity.
In addition, it poses problems whenever the board has to decide anything Google related. As a matter of principle, for any vote, board members with a conflict of interest should abstain. If the majority of board members have to abstain, this leaves the decision to a minority and thus reduces its legitimacy.
Tobias
James Alexander wrote:
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet gotten to "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually true at all at this point).
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is now hosted by Google. Along with e-mail services, Google Apps also includes Google Sheets, Google Docs, etc., which the Wikimedia Foundation now regularly makes use of. The Wikimedia Foundation is quite literally pumping a large portion of its data directly into Google's servers. This applies to Wikimedia Foundation staff, contractors, and Board members.
About a year ago, PiRSquared17 began documenting the relationship between Wikimedia and Google: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google. This page needs additional expansion, but it already mentions the millions of dollars that Google has directly donated to the Wikimedia Foundation and related organizations. (It's not quite clear how Google funded Wikidata, possibly via Wikimedia Deutschland.)
Before you try to dismiss the people with concerns about the relationship between Wikimedia and Google as conspiracy theorists and quacks, perhaps we should first have a full accounting of the tangled web that's been woven. My suspicion is that if you or others put in the time to thoroughly document the connection between the two entities, you'd miraculously find more than a single concern about a failed project, as your reply suggested.
MZMcBride
Hoi, To be perfectly honest, the biggest gift of Google is to recognise Wikipedia as significant. I like to think that it is because of the algorithms they use and even when it is not it is what makes Wikipedia significant. When they value us not only through their algorithms and give us money because we add value to their search results, there is something to find, I welcome their money as long as it fits with our stated principles.
Google did invest in Wikidata and It became a vital tool for Wikipedia through its interwiki links. Their thoughts on why they did this is not that relevant to me. What they did is end their superior tool and they spend money to end their product gracefully.
My thoughts on this are simple. The relation with Google is symbiotic. We both do better because of the other. Those that do not see this are not dismissed because they are quacks but because they do not see what is in front of them; they are imho irrelevant.
The suggestion that there might be something is great. The suggestion is to waste even more time. Time we could spend on researching how we can make a better mouse trap out of Wikipedia. My conclusion is that the people that waste their time politicking are in reality satisfying their own curiosity and not improving what we do or how we do it. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 January 2016 at 17:31, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
James Alexander wrote:
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what seems to be a giant school of red herring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring. We haven't quite yet gotten to "Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the "Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic (for the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually true at all at this point).
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is now hosted by Google. Along with e-mail services, Google Apps also includes Google Sheets, Google Docs, etc., which the Wikimedia Foundation now regularly makes use of. The Wikimedia Foundation is quite literally pumping a large portion of its data directly into Google's servers. This applies to Wikimedia Foundation staff, contractors, and Board members.
About a year ago, PiRSquared17 began documenting the relationship between Wikimedia and Google: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google. This page needs additional expansion, but it already mentions the millions of dollars that Google has directly donated to the Wikimedia Foundation and related organizations. (It's not quite clear how Google funded Wikidata, possibly via Wikimedia Deutschland.)
Before you try to dismiss the people with concerns about the relationship between Wikimedia and Google as conspiracy theorists and quacks, perhaps we should first have a full accounting of the tangled web that's been woven. My suspicion is that if you or others put in the time to thoroughly document the connection between the two entities, you'd miraculously find more than a single concern about a failed project, as your reply suggested.
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
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers: https://starttls.info/check/wikimedia.org
Yury
On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google
Apps
platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain
is
now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers: https://starttls.info/check/wikimedia.org
It's true that individual inboxes for staff/contractors/board/etc. are hosted in Google Apps. WMF Operations controls the mail routing (hence the MX record) and directs mail sent to different addresses to different places - including rules for allowing Office IT (via foundation corporate LDAP) to route addresses to Google: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/OPUP/browse/production/templates...
On 16 Jan 2016, at 18:39, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google
Apps
platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain
is
now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers: https://starttls.info/check/wikimedia.org
It's true that individual inboxes for staff/contractors/board/etc. are hosted in Google Apps. WMF Operations controls the mail routing (hence the MX record) and directs mail sent to different addresses to different places
- including rules for allowing Office IT (via foundation corporate LDAP) to
route addresses to Google: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/diffusion/OPUP/browse/production/templates...
Open source email options apparently aren't up to the job. As demonstrated by the number of times that the gmail-only 'mute thread' functionality has been mentioned on this list of late...
Thanks, Mike
Yury Bulka wrote:
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers: https://starttls.info/check/wikimedia.org
Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation switched to Google Apps around October 2010. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2010-October/108636.html
My understanding is that the MX records show where the mail goes initially, before being re-routed to either Google Apps for most staff, contractors, et al.; to OTRS if it's a particular set of addresses; or elsewhere as needed. If you'd like more detail, we can start a new thread.
Careful readers will note that the timeline of the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan 2016-17 is living at docs.google.com, not meta.wikimedia.org. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081120.html
MZMcBride
Yury Bulka setthemfree@privacyrequired.com wrote:
A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers: https://starttls.info/check/wikimedia.org
Cf. http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/operations%2Fpuppet.git/production/templates%2...:
| […]
| ldap_account: | driver = manualroute | domains = wikimedia.org | condition = ${lookup ldap \ | {user="cn=eximagent,ou=other,dc=corp,dc=wikimedia,dc=org" pass=LDAPPASSWORD \ | ldap:///ou=people,dc=corp,dc=wikimedia,dc=org?mail?sub?(&(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(mail=${quote_ldap:$local_part}@$domain)(x121Address=1))} \ | {true}fail} | local_part_suffix = +* | local_part_suffix_optional | transport = remote_smtp | route_list = * aspmx.l.google.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ldap_group: | driver = manualroute | domains = wikimedia.org | condition = ${lookup ldap \ | {user="cn=eximagent,ou=other,dc=corp,dc=wikimedia,dc=org" pass=LDAPPASSWORD \ | ldap:///ou=groups,dc=corp,dc=wikimedia,dc=org?businessCategory?sub?(businessCategory=${quote_ldap:$local_part}@$domain)} \ | {true}fail} | local_part_suffix = +* | local_part_suffix_optional | transport = remote_smtp | route_list = * aspmx.l.google.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | […]
Tim
10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com napisał(a):
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex.
While I don't have, and never had (nor expect to have in the future) any shares in Google, I have to make a full disclosure that I do use Google for my internet searches (Google.pl, to be exact, which may also be occasionally relevant).
Dariusz
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
Link 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Confli... 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest
Thanks, Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 14:14, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com napisał(a):
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex.
While I don't have, and never had (nor expect to have in the future) any shares in Google, I have to make a full disclosure that I do use Google for my internet searches (Google.pl, to be exact, which may also be occasionally relevant).
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know of one yet; I will ask).
I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o. (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata) and the dictionary is still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse myself.
I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be considered a potential COI, I think.
I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that I don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect and awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from coulrophobia).
cheers,
dj
Thanks Dariusz, nice example declaration for the rest of the board to think about.
I look forward to reading about the WMF board follow-up, as this is an easy win to demonstrate improved governance, at a time when we need to count a few quick wins in the good-will bank.
Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 15:40, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know of one yet; I will ask).
I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o. (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata) and the dictionary is still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse myself.
I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be considered a potential COI, I think.
I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that I don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect and awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from coulrophobia).
cheers,
dj
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know of one yet; I will ask).
I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o. (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata) and the dictionary is still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse myself.
I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be considered a potential COI, I think.
[…]
This illustrates the common (mis-)interpretation of con- flicts of interests quite nicely: When it concerns Wikime- dia, "interest" is something non-material, "duty"/"honour"/ etc., the conflicting interests however can always be mea- sured in dollars.
WMUK's practice recognizes to a degree that there are non- financial interests; that they have found nine people who can name their interests for the most part in one paragraph and none has friends or family shows the limits of such a system.
To me this insistence on declaring (blatant) conflicts of interests or labelling them with price tags is a red her- ring. The "quality" of a trustee or staffer should be mea- sured only by how far they advanced the organization. Noone should be able to excuse damaging it with the argument that they did not profit from the downfall.
Tim
Le 10/01/16 16:40, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good practice to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't know of one yet; I will ask).
Oh...
Right...
Please check * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies This is the list of policies you are bound to.
And amongst those, I would like to point out to: * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
I am saddened to discover that pretty obviously... the board is no more following a policy it approved many years ago.
And also saddened to discover that new board members are not oriented about their obligations. Nor do new board members actually look at WMF site (if only to point out to approved policies obviously disregarded).
Florence
I terms of shares, I am a major shareholder in Druid Multimedia sp. z o. o. (Polish abbreviation for LLC), which developed the largest online dictionary in Poland. If there are any discussions related to Wiktionary or other dictionary services (e.g. within Wikidata) and the dictionary is still published by the company, I am going to recuse myself. I also own a significant number of shares in Insta.Ling sp. z o. o., which is a startup oriented at online flashcard language acquisition (currently with about 50,000 users in Poland and Germany). If there is ever a language acquisition project discussed, and I'm still in, I'm going to recuse myself.
I've also had a number of academic affiliations, but these can hardly be considered a potential COI, I think.
I'm glad the conversation is back to more civilized - I have to admit that I don't quite enjoy being called a clown (while I have a healthy respect and awe for clowns, and I don't consider myself to be suffering from coulrophobia).
cheers,
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 Jan 10, 2016 12:33, "Florence Devouard" anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If you want to check some best practice examples of meaningful and frank declarations, take a look at WMUK's.[2]
I have no problem with that. You've provided links from WMUK, so until there is something similar for WMF, I don't think we can expect all Board members to make declarations (but I also think it would be a good
practice
to develop a similar model for WMF board, just observing that I don't
know
of one yet; I will ask).
I would like to point out to:
- https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy
- https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment
I am saddened to discover that pretty obviously... the board is no more
following a policy it approved many years ago.
At least as of last summer, board members all follow those policies: Taking a pledge of personal commitment on joining, and making a COI declaration each year.
These are not currently public; that is a difference from WMUK practice.
WMF board members in my experience do recuse themselves from any decision where they may be conflicted - more strictly than in other organizations I know.
And also saddened to discover that new board members are not oriented about their obligations.
There is an orientation session in person each year, as well as online. There is surely room for improvement, but it is part of the annual agenda.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested Arnnon Geshuri for a seat on the Board?
Sarah
Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested Arnnon Geshuri for a seat on the Board?
AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know, and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
dj
On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote: ...
AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know, and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.
This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
As an unlikely example, if the only nominations that get through to the board were nominated and on the personal network of one current trustee, then yes, the rest of the board of trustees must know that a conflict of interest was at play, rather than presuming that an unbiased process happened without you understanding it or caring about it.
It's been said before, there is no possible reason for this information to be secret. Please publish it or give a real explanation of why it must be kept a secret rather than "because we want to" or "because it was always kept a secret".
Fae
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote: .. This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion.
dj
Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be nominated. I do not know of any charity where prospective trustees routinely get nominated in secret without the candidate knowing who put their name forward, though some people respond to public recruiting adverts for trustee seats. The WMF is not supposed to be run as if it were a secretive members only club for plutocrats.
There has been no reason given here so far that can explain this default arbitrary secrecy. It seems very hard not to consider the possibility that Arnnon's nomination was done in a way that the community would find unpalatable and would reflect badly on those involved.
Just make the facts of Arnnon's appointment to the board a matter of public record, rather than dancing around it.
Fae
On 11 January 2016 at 01:44, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote: .. This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion.
dj
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote: .. This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion.
Hi Dariusz,
Do you mean you have no knowledge of who nominated the candidates? Im also having difficulty understanding how you could vote without being aware of who nominated the candidates. But there are some ways that could be OK, if not ideal.
Was the filtering process concluded before you were appointed to the board? Or was the filtering process done by a subcommittee? Or was nomination data not provided as part of the info pack about each candidate? Or something else...?
How many candidates for these two seats did you (personally) evaluate before voting to appoint these two?
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested Arnnon Geshuri for a seat on the Board?
AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know, and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why it would matter - people should stand or fail on their own.
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
Dariusz, my request is that you make it public on this occasion. Given the new trustee's involvement in this https://pando.com/2014/03/25/newly-unsealed-documents-show-steve-jobs-brutally-callous-response-after-getting-a-google-employee-fired/, the nomination is surprising. I'm also concerned that you seemed not to be aware of the background, but you supported the appointment, so it raises a general question about how these decisions are made.
Trust in the Board is low at the moment. Transparency will go a long way to restoring it.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the process starts).
NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha. (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you; they are professionals.)
Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list. However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not dilettantes.
There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how vocal he is here or anywhere else.
I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times. Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by, but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the best possible options for your organization if you are able to do that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if there is no that serious investigation against him.
Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how serious mistakes could pass because of that.
That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also, Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything against candidates of Google background). This situation could have been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
Committee: - Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country. - Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow! - OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a developing country. - We have a woman! - From developing country? - No. - OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year. - True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
Board: - Dariusz: We have two candidates! - Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the end of December, so it's not my job anymore." - Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting! - Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him... Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing serious, I am sure." - Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect. - Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us. However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for dilettantism.
On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious. We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people. OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's orbit would do the job, as well :)
Milos, is your email a wind-up?
I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really, *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy, a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the right parties for rich Californians.
Imagine a world where the sum of human knowledge was governed by an open and transparent trusted meritocracy. Wouldn't that be super?
Fae
On 11 January 2016 at 02:18, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the process starts).
NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha. (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you; they are professionals.)
Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list. However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not dilettantes.
There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how vocal he is here or anywhere else.
I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times. Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by, but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the best possible options for your organization if you are able to do that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if there is no that serious investigation against him.
Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how serious mistakes could pass because of that.
That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also, Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything against candidates of Google background). This situation could have been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
Committee:
- Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
- Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
- OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
developing country.
- We have a woman!
- From developing country?
- No.
- OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
- True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
Board:
- Dariusz: We have two candidates!
- Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
- Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
- Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him... Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing serious, I am sure."
- Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
- Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us. However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for dilettantism.
On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious. We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people. OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's orbit would do the job, as well :)
Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from late September or early October when candidates and nominations were solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.
Risker
On 10 January 2016 at 21:18, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the process starts).
NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha. (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you; they are professionals.)
Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list. However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not dilettantes.
There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how vocal he is here or anywhere else.
I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times. Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by, but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the best possible options for your organization if you are able to do that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if there is no that serious investigation against him.
Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how serious mistakes could pass because of that.
That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also, Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything against candidates of Google background). This situation could have been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
Committee:
- Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
- Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
- OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
developing country.
- We have a woman!
- From developing country?
- No.
- OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
- True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
Board:
- Dariusz: We have two candidates!
- Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
- Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
- Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him... Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing serious, I am sure."
- Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
- Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us. However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for dilettantism.
On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious. We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people. OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's orbit would do the job, as well :)
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 Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, is your email a wind-up?
I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
You know I didn't say that. However, this process has never changed and Jimmy's network *is* realistically the best method for reaching strong candidates inside of the current state of the movement.
There are two better methods for that:
1) Wider community participation in making a wishlist. That has to be followed by WMF's ability to reach those people from the wishlist. I am not sure if WMF has that capacity.
2) Good HR agency. Sue found that one and they did good job by finding Bishakha.
If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really, *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy, a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the right parties for rich Californians.
Not checking Arnnon's background is serious flaw by all Board members at the time of his selection. Otherwise, as I said, he'd be a strong reinforcement to the Board, on the lines I said above.
Hm. I think we already scared the Board enough. Please, don't mention governance review, as some of them are close to their 50s and it could negatively influence their health.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from late September or early October when candidates and nominations were solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.
If you are referring to Boryana Dineva's email, that's nothing new. The "Jimmy's list" wasn't the only list seven years ago. We called for nominations, if I remember well. I spent the most of my time in talking with people about their ideas. In relation to the nominations, the biggest issue was that almost nobody cared about them. I am almost sure this was the case this time, as well.
However, that list was filled with the best and realistic names -- meaning that anyone from the list could have been reached. Meaning that from one side some of us wanted high profile names, but they weren't reachable by the means of Wikimedia Foundation; while from the other one you can't compete with Jimmy's network if you are not Bono.
its not difficult to dress mutton up as lamb
consider if you will This person has considerable experience in HR and collaborative efforts with most of the largest multinational technology companies. Was instrumental in the development of a cross industry HR process that ensured employees looking to change between companies werent pressured into revealing projects and propriety developments as part of the recruitment process.
it like having a COI policy based on how much one owns of a company rather how dependent one is on a company for their income, one person owning 10% of x may have less than 1% of their overall investments in X, where as someone with less than 1% may have 75% investments in X so therefore X is more critical. Another person may have no investment in X but be employed a supplier to X and derive their whole income from that which person is more likely to act with a COI.
It's a rhetorical question because each can choose not to, the only measure that should consider is whether the people will act in the best interest of WMF/community within the standards we expect from trustees of the community... most of us can identify a number of trusted(highly trusted) contributors that divided the community over whats acceptable standards and expectations and the resulting conflicts that occurred
Regardless of the selection process whether through a professional HR company or a community consultation it is concerning that someone named as defendant in a substantive court matter would be recommended for a position of trust with a charity before the matter was resolved especially considering that an associated court action found that wrong doing had taken place.
What ever process was used its definitely broken,
Cheers Gnangarra
On 11 January 2016 at 11:32, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, is your email a wind-up?
I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
You know I didn't say that. However, this process has never changed and Jimmy's network *is* realistically the best method for reaching strong candidates inside of the current state of the movement.
There are two better methods for that:
- Wider community participation in making a wishlist. That has to be
followed by WMF's ability to reach those people from the wishlist. I am not sure if WMF has that capacity.
- Good HR agency. Sue found that one and they did good job by finding
Bishakha.
If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really, *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy, a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the right parties for rich Californians.
Not checking Arnnon's background is serious flaw by all Board members at the time of his selection. Otherwise, as I said, he'd be a strong reinforcement to the Board, on the lines I said above.
Hm. I think we already scared the Board enough. Please, don't mention governance review, as some of them are close to their 50s and it could negatively influence their health.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other
former
process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from late September or early October when candidates and nominations were solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.
If you are referring to Boryana Dineva's email, that's nothing new. The "Jimmy's list" wasn't the only list seven years ago. We called for nominations, if I remember well. I spent the most of my time in talking with people about their ideas. In relation to the nominations, the biggest issue was that almost nobody cared about them. I am almost sure this was the case this time, as well.
However, that list was filled with the best and realistic names -- meaning that anyone from the list could have been reached. Meaning that from one side some of us wanted high profile names, but they weren't reachable by the means of Wikimedia Foundation; while from the other one you can't compete with Jimmy's network if you are not Bono.
-- Milos
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
ok, if it hadn't already, this thread has now officially spun out of control and can be marked as 'ridiculous'. Thank you for taking an important issueand driving it so far off that I'll stop reading.
Lodewijk
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations from our donors, if this helps.
I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the process starts).
NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha. (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you; they are professionals.)
Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list. However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not dilettantes.
There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how vocal he is here or anywhere else.
I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times. Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by, but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the best possible options for your organization if you are able to do that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if there is no that serious investigation against him.
Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how serious mistakes could pass because of that.
That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also, Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything against candidates of Google background). This situation could have been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
Committee:
- Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
- Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
- OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
developing country.
- We have a woman!
- From developing country?
- No.
- OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
- True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
Board:
- Dariusz: We have two candidates!
- Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
- Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
- Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him... Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing serious, I am sure."
- Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
- Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us. However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for dilettantism.
On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious. We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people. OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's orbit would do the job, as well :)
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