On the WMUK water cooler I have asked:[1] * "In terms of timing, Alastair, nor any other member of the board, has yet confirmed in writing exactly when he first informed the board about accepting the job." @26 September 2013 * "What was the date of the first email to the board from Alastair bringing up the issue of his relationship with CIPR as a potential conflict of loyalties?" @2 October 2013
I am increasingly concerned that no trustee is willing to openly share a date of an email from Alastair with the members of the charity, or instead explain that the board of trustees were made aware of Alastair's conflict of loyalties only after CIPR made public announcements, or after it was posted on Wikipediocracy and then raised for their attention, possibly not by Alastair. It should not take more than a week to answer this question, especially when so many other prompt replies to selected parts of the discussion have been made by the board.
Chris Keating as the Chairman of the charity stated that this assertion is factually inaccurate: "Alastair failed to declare his conflict of loyalties to either the board or the membership until immediately after a public fuss about it was made on Wikipediocracy. Alastair knew about this conflict of loyalties before running to be a trustee at the AGM, he failed to discuss it with the board of trustees then or declare it so that members voting had the full facts." but despite being quick to reply on other issues, has yet to provide demonstrable facts to show what parts of this assertion are inaccurate.
In terms of an indisputable timeline: * CIPR publicly became a working partner with WMUK during 2011/2012, making a presentation at the 2012 AGM * Alastair was running for the CIPR job before the AGM * Alastair became a WMUK trustee on 8 June 2013 at the AGM * CIPR made a public announcement of Alastair's becoming their CEO on 27 August 2013 * the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013 * Alastair publicly declared his conflict of loyalties the day afterwards, 11 September 2013 * no provision has been made for the conventional 6 month grace period that should pass between being a trustee of WMUK and taking paid employment with a partner of the charity as has been enforced for other trustees in the past[2]
With relatively few active members of the charity it falls to the same old hands to raise questions for the board about their serious concerns, or to provide feedback and context. This would be a good time to have other members contribute on the Water cooler with varying viewpoints.
Links: 1. https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler#Alastair_has_provided_a_full... 2. https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/COI#Employment_related_to_the_Charity
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae,
Happy to clarify that that Alastair informed the Board of his new job on 28 August, not - as you have presented elsewhere as fact - after 11 September. There is of course no requirement that Trustees disclose to the Board any job opportunity they are pursuing.
You have brought up the subject of whether this is "employment connected to the movement" in terms of our Conflict of Interest Policy. The relevant part of the policy reads:
"Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK or Wikimedia movement organisations for a period of six months after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board." As CIPR is not funded by Wikimedia UK or any other Wikimedia movement organisation this is not relevant. We took the right decision last year in saying trustees in effect have to choose between serving on the Board and working within the Wikimedia movement but this does not extend to work in other spheres.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On the WMUK water cooler I have asked:[1]
- "In terms of timing, Alastair, nor any other member of the board,
has yet confirmed in writing exactly when he first informed the board about accepting the job." @26 September 2013
- "What was the date of the first email to the board from Alastair
bringing up the issue of his relationship with CIPR as a potential conflict of loyalties?" @2 October 2013
I am increasingly concerned that no trustee is willing to openly share a date of an email from Alastair with the members of the charity, or instead explain that the board of trustees were made aware of Alastair's conflict of loyalties only after CIPR made public announcements, or after it was posted on Wikipediocracy and then raised for their attention, possibly not by Alastair. It should not take more than a week to answer this question, especially when so many other prompt replies to selected parts of the discussion have been made by the board.
Chris Keating as the Chairman of the charity stated that this assertion is factually inaccurate: "Alastair failed to declare his conflict of loyalties to either the board or the membership until immediately after a public fuss about it was made on Wikipediocracy. Alastair knew about this conflict of loyalties before running to be a trustee at the AGM, he failed to discuss it with the board of trustees then or declare it so that members voting had the full facts." but despite being quick to reply on other issues, has yet to provide demonstrable facts to show what parts of this assertion are inaccurate.
In terms of an indisputable timeline:
- CIPR publicly became a working partner with WMUK during 2011/2012,
making a presentation at the 2012 AGM
- Alastair was running for the CIPR job before the AGM
- Alastair became a WMUK trustee on 8 June 2013 at the AGM
- CIPR made a public announcement of Alastair's becoming their CEO on
27 August 2013
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
- Alastair publicly declared his conflict of loyalties the day
afterwards, 11 September 2013
- no provision has been made for the conventional 6 month grace period
that should pass between being a trustee of WMUK and taking paid employment with a partner of the charity as has been enforced for other trustees in the past[2]
With relatively few active members of the charity it falls to the same old hands to raise questions for the board about their serious concerns, or to provide feedback and context. This would be a good time to have other members contribute on the Water cooler with varying viewpoints.
Links:
https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler#Alastair_has_provided_a_full... 2. https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/COI#Employment_related_to_the_Charity
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Coming at this for the first time (I tend not to follow WMUKwiki these days), I have to say I'm with Chris on this one; the COI policy refers to "organisations funded by Wikimedia UK or Wikimedia movement organisations", rather than the more nebulous concept of "partner organisations", and CIPR hasn't received money from us that I know of.
Sure, having a meaningful discussion about our involvement with PR organisations, and the conflicts that might arise with someone working in that industry, is worth having - but this sort of challenge doesn't seem to be engaging with that question, and seems to be actively going off after red herrings.
(And i thought we'd put governance debates behind us, at least for a while...)
Andrew.
On 3 October 2013 16:10, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Fae,
Happy to clarify that that Alastair informed the Board of his new job on 28 August, not - as you have presented elsewhere as fact - after 11 September. There is of course no requirement that Trustees disclose to the Board any job opportunity they are pursuing.
You have brought up the subject of whether this is "employment connected to the movement" in terms of our Conflict of Interest Policy. The relevant part of the policy reads:
"Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK or Wikimedia movement organisations for a period of six months after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board." As CIPR is not funded by Wikimedia UK or any other Wikimedia movement organisation this is not relevant. We took the right decision last year in saying trustees in effect have to choose between serving on the Board and working within the Wikimedia movement but this does not extend to work in other spheres.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On the WMUK water cooler I have asked:[1]
- "In terms of timing, Alastair, nor any other member of the board,
has yet confirmed in writing exactly when he first informed the board about accepting the job." @26 September 2013
- "What was the date of the first email to the board from Alastair
bringing up the issue of his relationship with CIPR as a potential conflict of loyalties?" @2 October 2013
I am increasingly concerned that no trustee is willing to openly share a date of an email from Alastair with the members of the charity, or instead explain that the board of trustees were made aware of Alastair's conflict of loyalties only after CIPR made public announcements, or after it was posted on Wikipediocracy and then raised for their attention, possibly not by Alastair. It should not take more than a week to answer this question, especially when so many other prompt replies to selected parts of the discussion have been made by the board.
Chris Keating as the Chairman of the charity stated that this assertion is factually inaccurate: "Alastair failed to declare his conflict of loyalties to either the board or the membership until immediately after a public fuss about it was made on Wikipediocracy. Alastair knew about this conflict of loyalties before running to be a trustee at the AGM, he failed to discuss it with the board of trustees then or declare it so that members voting had the full facts." but despite being quick to reply on other issues, has yet to provide demonstrable facts to show what parts of this assertion are inaccurate.
In terms of an indisputable timeline:
- CIPR publicly became a working partner with WMUK during 2011/2012,
making a presentation at the 2012 AGM
- Alastair was running for the CIPR job before the AGM
- Alastair became a WMUK trustee on 8 June 2013 at the AGM
- CIPR made a public announcement of Alastair's becoming their CEO on
27 August 2013
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
- Alastair publicly declared his conflict of loyalties the day
afterwards, 11 September 2013
- no provision has been made for the conventional 6 month grace period
that should pass between being a trustee of WMUK and taking paid employment with a partner of the charity as has been enforced for other trustees in the past[2]
With relatively few active members of the charity it falls to the same old hands to raise questions for the board about their serious concerns, or to provide feedback and context. This would be a good time to have other members contribute on the Water cooler with varying viewpoints.
Links:
https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler#Alastair_has_provided_a_full... 2. https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/COI#Employment_related_to_the_Charity
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Quoting Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
<snip>
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
Simple question:
When did Wikipediocracy become a member of Wikimedia UK, and able to dictate how the charity operates? A casual inspection suggests it's just a front for malcontents to feed their grievances, or manipulation, into The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.
I've my grievances with The Signpost, far more than I've any worry that Alastair is incapable of managing (i.e. not voting on) issues where his COI is present.
Brian McNeil. -- Wikinewsie.org | http://en.wikinewsie.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." Tel: +44 (0)788 987 8314 | Email: brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org GPG Key Fingerprint: 7C3D FFD5 5ED5 B80F 1D18 A52B E84C 8928 6ABC A7AD
On 3 October 2013 16:22, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
When did Wikipediocracy become a member of Wikimedia UK, and able to dictate how the charity operates? A casual inspection suggests it's just a front for malcontents to feed their grievances, or manipulation, into The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.
And considering Fae's previous experience of them ...
- d.
On 3 October 2013 16:22, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Quoting Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
<snip>
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
Simple question:
When did Wikipediocracy become a member of Wikimedia UK, and able to dictate how the charity operates?
I don't know why you think this is a simple question.
A casual inspection suggests it's just a front for malcontents to feed their grievances, or manipulation, into The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.
I don't know why you think it is a "front". I think it was Voltaire who
said of Henry VIII that he was what everyone could see he was, which is surprisingly witty rather than banal.
As for the Signpost, still essential reading, while WI is inessential reading, and in my experience rather poorly informed.
Charles
I appear not to be able to edit the Water cooler at the moment (is this an artefact of the transfer?) That should be fixed asap...
Fae as you're soliciting for further comment I'll just note the reason I haven’t commented further on the cooler is that I don't think it's productive at the moment - I'm happy with how the board has dealt with things, I don't think we should assume bad faith from Alastair. I do think we should continue to be aware of his - and anyone else's - positions, but that's hardly an interesting comment. Re: "conflict of loyalties" (which is not about COI) well for what it's worth I agree with Charles Matthew's comments on the cooler. I'm not sure that we should be actively looking for more people to be outraged...
Best Simon
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org Sent: 03 October 2013 16:23 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list; Fæ Cc: Sue Gardner; Jimmy Wales Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Alastair McCapra's conflict of loyalties between CIPR and WMUK
Quoting Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
<snip>
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
Simple question:
When did Wikipediocracy become a member of Wikimedia UK, and able to dictate how the charity operates? A casual inspection suggests it's just a front for malcontents to feed their grievances, or manipulation, into The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.
I've my grievances with The Signpost, far more than I've any worry that Alastair is incapable of managing (i.e. not voting on) issues where his COI is present.
Brian McNeil. -- Wikinewsie.org | http://en.wikinewsie.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." Tel: +44 (0)788 987 8314 | Email: brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org GPG Key Fingerprint: 7C3D FFD5 5ED5 B80F 1D18 A52B E84C 8928 6ABC A7AD
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
If you've been following this you might be interested in the views of Geoff Brigham, the WMF legal counsel, which he's posted on our wiki:
https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler#Comment_from_Geoff_Brigham
Also, I would certainly urge more people to contribute to the discussion. If there are a lot of people out there thinking to themselves that the Board has got this wrong, but haven't summoned the time or energy to post to that effect, please do post and let us know your views. Equally, if there are people who have been watching this conversation and haven't participated because they feel the right decision's been made and so they have nothing to add, please do speak up.
This time last year we had a very clear message from our membership, from the broader community, and from the Wikimedia Foundation that we needed to greatly improve how we handled conflicts of interest. That resulted in the Hudson Review, which gave us some pretty clear recommendations. We have followed those recommendations in dealing with this situation - taking external advice early, thinking carefully about the likely impact of the potential conflict of interest, and coming to a conclusion which the Board believes defends us not just against the risk of anything bad happening, but any allegation of impropriety. In short we have been to the best of our ability doing good governance.
Now, we also clearly have a duty to our members, and a responsibility to maintain the goodwill of the Wikimedia community as a whole. If there is a widespread view that, even with the steps we've outlined, it's not in the charity's best interests for Alastair to continue, then we will listen to that. However since Alastair posted the details of how he will handle this situation, only 5 people (myself included) have taken part in the resulting discussion. Some have posted at some length and in strident terms, but I don't yet see the picture I would need to see to be persuaded we are taking the wrong course of action here.
So please do take part in the discussion.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Simon Knight sjgknight@gmail.com wrote:
I appear not to be able to edit the Water cooler at the moment (is this an artefact of the transfer?) That should be fixed asap...
Fae as you're soliciting for further comment I'll just note the reason I haven’t commented further on the cooler is that I don't think it's productive at the moment - I'm happy with how the board has dealt with things, I don't think we should assume bad faith from Alastair. I do think we should continue to be aware of his - and anyone else's - positions, but that's hardly an interesting comment. Re: "conflict of loyalties" (which is not about COI) well for what it's worth I agree with Charles Matthew's comments on the cooler. I'm not sure that we should be actively looking for more people to be outraged...
Best Simon
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org Sent: 03 October 2013 16:23 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list; Fæ Cc: Sue Gardner; Jimmy Wales Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Alastair McCapra's conflict of loyalties between CIPR and WMUK
Quoting Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
<snip>
- the thread on Wikipediocracy was started on 10 September 2013
Simple question:
When did Wikipediocracy become a member of Wikimedia UK, and able to dictate how the charity operates? A casual inspection suggests it's just a front for malcontents to feed their grievances, or manipulation, into The Signpost - in it's distinctive "Yellow Journalism" style.
I've my grievances with The Signpost, far more than I've any worry that Alastair is incapable of managing (i.e. not voting on) issues where his COI is present.
Brian McNeil.
Wikinewsie.org | http://en.wikinewsie.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." Tel: +44 (0)788 987 8314 | Email: brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org GPG Key Fingerprint: 7C3D FFD5 5ED5 B80F 1D18 A52B E84C 8928 6ABC A7AD
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org