Yes, we don't know yet what it was that James allegedly did. James may have
been very much in the wrong. However, we can also look at what the Board
and James are saying in public, and so far I am disappointed in how the
follow-up is being done. I hope that a joint statement from James and the
remaining board members will emerge, and that it will be comprehensive.
It's true that an overreaction to an incident can lead to bad policy.
However, an incident is also a learning opportunity, and potentially a
catalyst for change that strengthens the organization in the long run.
(: Yes, Cascadia's budget is tiny. However, I am also thinking of the State
of Washington, which has an annual operating budget of approximately $19
billion. The state has laws about public records and open meetings that are
quite extensive.
Pine
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
I think that your 'lessons' are quite
premature. We still don't know the
what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
It may also be that it was disastrous.
transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
'quick', as was pointed out by some.
Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
say that incidents make bad policy.
At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
also makes a different organisational structure.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Depending on what all we learn as this goes
forward, some action items
that
may emerge from this situation as it seems to be
evolving so far:
(1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
(2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
(3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
(4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far
more
of what happens at the WMF Board should be public
and transparent. This
includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that
level
of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable
discussions to have in
public,
but as we can see from how this situation is
developing, handling them in
private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work,
but
here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little
that the Board does
that
can't be made public. I would hope that the
WMF Board would hold itself
to
similarly high expectations for openness and
transparency, even when it's
uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is
not a
sufficient reason for keeping information
private. So I hope that the WMF
Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board
meetings
(with a limited exception for executive sessions)
and I still think that
level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
organization.
It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation
evolves.
Pine
_______________________________________________
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>