Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman (Olatunde Isaac)

Personally, i'm not sure if James would like to be reinstated but I think the involuntarily removal of a community elected member without community consultation is barbaric and unethical. However. In my perception, I believe Maria Sefidari's appointment is "interim", perhaps for a fresh election to be conducted. However the BoT should clarify her status. She's a good candidate to me, if she would like to run for a proper election. Best, Olatunde Isaac. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. -----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Datet;Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:22:26 To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 221 Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Craig Franklin) 2. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Todd Allen) 3. Re: The reinstatement of James Heilman (Fæ) 4. Re: I am going to San Francisco (Oliver Keyes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:09:00 +1000 From: Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> To: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman Message-ID: <CAHF+k388fSOM4nG0rvgowa7mHEzpBwo=C9Lb26wsmQ3w=shC=g(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Patricio's email on the topic makes it quite clear that María was appointed to the seat vacated by James Heilman: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081540.html And, as we are all aware, James was himself appointed as the result of an election. Unless the relevant authorities in Florida have overturned María's appointment and I have not heard about it, she is sitting in the seat formerly occupied by James. I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a formally agreed procedure on how to handle vacancies that might arise in these community-selected seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must deal with here and now. Cheers, Craig On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 05:16:08 -0700 From: Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> To: cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net, Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman Message-ID: <CAGToUqzZ9cb8xovegPm5O-5g4LWTDLxUJ2nRfsmhRA7OvjEzbA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to serve in that role. I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put forth for a neutral outside review of the situation are long overdue. And the Board also needs to seriously reconsider what was (not) communicated when the situation occurred. Essentially, we got a load of say-nothing PR garbage, not a frank and thorough explanation, of why a trustee overwhelmingly voted for by the community had been involuntarily removed without consulting that same community. I think there are a few points that need to be thought through. First, it needs to be clarified what really happened. Jimmy has publicly and bluntly accused James of lying about the circumstances of his departure, but has also steadfastly refused to say what he considers the truth to be and why. Having been accused that way, James has every right to defend himself, but the entire Board has steadfastly refused to say what they see the truth as actually being, only releasing PR gibberish that said absolutely nothing. If James was calling attention to serious problems at the Foundation and doing everything he could to find out more about them, well, I think it's pretty clearly turned out that he was in fact right. If that's the case, he was in fact fulfilling his duty to look after the interests of the WMF. And if James were acting with some kind of malfeasance (which I consider highly unlikely, but more as a hypothetical for if such a thing ever did occur), we need to know that, too, because chances are very good that otherwise, we'll elect him again by a landslide if he chooses to run again. I'm sure everyone knows the end of the story if that happens and the Board refuses to seat him. Secondly, I think the Board needs to hold a frank and open review of its processes around dismissing trustees, especially community-selected ones. Even if it's not technically legally required to consult the community before the fact or frankly inform them why a decision was made after, is relying on a legal technicality to do an end-run around the community election process an appropriate way of handling things? I think that question deserves careful consideration. Additionally, I think it needs to be considered whether a formal apology is owed. Even if too much water has passed under the bridge for reinstatement to be workable, saying "Hey, we're sorry, you actually brought up valid concerns even if we didn't agree with your methods at the time" might be a very good step toward the healing process. (If that's actually true, of course.) If the Board shot the messenger rather than addressing serious problems (and, well, that's what a lot of us think), that needs to be candidly addressed. And finally, I think the communication style in itself needs to be reexamined. A lot of trustees come from corporate backgrounds where that type of opaque, "nothing to see here folks, move along" style of communication is acceptable and expected. Wikimedians generally expect better than that, and I think we should expect better than that. Ducking and weaving around direct questions breeds mistrust; sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you don't think your actions would be defensible if you publicly and frankly say why you undertook them, you probably need to rethink them. There will of course be times that some information will be necessarily private, but that should be considered an exception that must be well-justified, not the rule. And if that is the case, don't try to spin and obfuscate with a bunch of PR junk, just frankly say "We (can't|won't) tell you that because _________." The volunteer community does need the WMF. After all, someone's got to keep the servers running, and handle things like legal services and the millions of dollars that flow through the organization. But the WMF needs the volunteer community too, or it may as well just shut the lights off on the way out. Each side should see the other as an equal and necessary partner and as an ally towards the common aim of creating the best free and open educational resources possible. Right now, it seems that a lot of the community sees the WMF as an overbearing would-be "owner" of the projects that needs to be pushed back at every turn, and it seems the WMF sees the community as a nuisance to be stiff-armed out of the way if it dares to get in the way of some grand strategy. That's not a healthy dynamic, and we don't fix it without open, fully transparent, and honest communication. Well, that turned out longer than I expected, but I can't really find any parts that I don't think need to be said. I think we're at a unique opportunity to reexamine how the WMF can best serve the goals of the movement, and what its role should be in doing so. I think we're also at a point to consider what exactly the Board's role should be in that, what its priorities should be, and how it should operate under difficult circumstances. Obviously, what happened this time was not optimal. Please keep the lines of communication open as you move forward with any reviews and reconsiderations. For better or worse, the perception will be that if you're not talking about it, you aren't thinking about it and don't care. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:34:39 +0000 From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> To: Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman Message-ID: <CAH7nnD2fBeU3yxcLJjJCb+UGy5g1X1boZp1WeNDzQfsm1vU8Zw(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, we are in agreement. Maria is an 'Appointed Trustee', not a 'Community Selected Trustee'. So the number of 'Appointed Trustees' went up by one, the number of 'Community Selected Trustees' went down by one. For political convenience, the WMF board is spinning her seat on the board as if she were a Community Selected Trustee, but it's obviously not true unless we start redefining the plain English meaning of words. The result is a board with a democratic deficit, and the way most trustee boards with elected members handle this is to ensure that the appointed replacement will be obliged to stand for election at the earliest opportunity. I welcome a procedure like this to be written up for the WMF board so that we can avoid the difficulty of vacated seats in a more credible way. The current system of bartering and balancing lists of pros and cons between sitting trustees, their lawyers, and a volunteer election committee that is appointed by the Board of Trustees, is unhealthy and it is a fantasy to imagine that the end result can be called democratic. It would be a comfort if Maria Sefidari would confirm that she will be running for an election by offering up her seat at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than gripping on to it based on the tenure granted by James Heilman's democratic selection. We voted in an election where the winner of the election was the selected candidate, shifting the meaning of what our votes were for after the election, so the board can later on pick and chose from a list of candidates that they find to their political tastes, is not the way we want to run transparent and credible elections. Fae On 27 February 2016 at 12:09, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 08:22:23 -0500 From: Oliver Keyes <ironholds(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco Message-ID: <CADRwj989LV51mvdMTxOa+8A4bOTR-GDhCiuwaHmbfsBEEFNyrg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Anthony has hit the nail on the head here with "could be used to punish or intimidate staff"; the reason I, at least, am uncomfortable talking about the internal details here (beyond the obvious PR elements for the Foundation) is that there's a lot of ongoing fear about repercussions. A couple of years ago this wouldn't have been the case. (This also indirectly answers the "can we see your NDA?" question. I don't know. And hell, I'm this scared having *already quit*.) More guidance, and public guidance at that, would be deeply appreciated. Within the Discovery Analytics team we've gone out of our way to write up pretty all-encompassing guidelines specifically for data (which I look forward to being able to publish pretty soon - we just got clearance to do so). It would be nice to have more firm guidance on what we should do with transparency around other kinds of information. It would, of course, be even nicer if we could rebuild trust, since that's the source of a lot of the fear. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ------------------------------ End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 221 *********************************************