I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I would like to believe that they are all good people.
Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon, and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has.
Pine
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles cometstyles@gmail.com wrote:
Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full truth..
On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for filling in a few more details.
Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an emergency action. Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after the fact. We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also for the BoT and the movement in general. I trust that there will be an explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to
deal
with the fallout of that decision.
Cheers, Craig
On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that page, I have copied his comment below:
"Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)"
I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly find this whole situation strange and unfortunate. However, it seems relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be aware of it..
I also agree that the information about the two new board members should be circulated promptly.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki steinsplitter-wiki@live.com wrote:
The removal is not transparent at all.
Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words different.
Very disappointing.
From: rupert.thurner@gmail.com Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself,
at
least in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to
be
able to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
simple
numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
provide
like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it transparent.
best, rupert
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
-- Cometstyles
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