I'd like to suggest we look at this decision from as objective and broad a
perspective as possible, and consider any statement (or lack of any
statement) from the Wikimedia Foundation from that perspective. My initial
thoughts are that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are an entity
that:
* Controls one of the most valuable brands in the world
* Leverages that control to command a budget approaching $100 million
annually, mostly from $15 donations
* Makes or approves decisions, with an unknown level of transparency, about
how to spend that budget
* Is only minimally accountable to anyone. (Four Trustees are selected by
the Board itself, one is a co-founder of Wikipedia with exclusive claim to
a seat, two are selected by a somewhat arcane process by the Chapters, and
only three -- 30% -- are elected by Wikimedia volunteers)
With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled
several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the
most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history.
Any explanation of the reasons should be commensurate, in my view, to the
points outlined above.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be
written, a resolution
explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the board
is written and passed. If there are legal reasons that mean that his
departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be noted -
and I hope they're particularly strong reasons. Without looking up the
vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge segment of
the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how WMF
should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past. His sudden
removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop
functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way too
much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too openly
in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought Wikimedia
should go - even though he literally published a platform before he was
elected. The sudden removal of a very well respected community elected
trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be
responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset.
Best,
KG
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Add me as well.
Eager to know what happened.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>