[Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[Toby Negrin]

Hi Cometstyles -

A lot of people have put much more of themselves into the project than me
but I would like to request that we maintain a civil tone and subject.
Regardless of how we feel about professional aptitude I think we should
leave personal lives and families out of these discussions.

-Toby



On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Comet styles <cometstyles at gmail.com> wrote:

> The major problem is and has been for a while  is that we have people
> in the hierarchy who do not understand how the wiki works, most have
> never made an edit out of their 'hidden' wikis or userpages on wmfwiki
> or meta..
>
> How can one trust a product in the hands of someone who does not use
> it? ..We will never get a truthful answer for his removal and the
> reason is probably quite petty as well but it shows discord amongst
> our so called 'leaders' and its sad and ironic that this had to happen
> around the time wikipedia is doing its donation drive..honestly, WMF
> has taken a  nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the
> hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her
> 'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC
> for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the
> same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..
>
> ---
> Cometstyles/Warpath
>
> On 1/9/16, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml at googlemail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard
> > for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community)
> > to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of
> > evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer
> > the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not
> > happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more
> > insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of
> > speculation.
> >
> > I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also
> > follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I
> > do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by
> > Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
> >
> > Here's what I think might have happened:
> >
> > James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do
> > things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also
> > endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less
> > of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work
> > in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the
> > cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic
> > and collective voice to the outside.
> > These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to
> > the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community
> > involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh
> > criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community,
> > wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and
> > tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in
> > turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust.
> > The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership,
> > and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with
> > senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James,
> > being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open
> > review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other
> > board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a
> > public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps
> > inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation,
> > so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from
> > the board.
> >
> >
> > This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion
> > at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a
> > grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process
> > of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what
> > they perceive is incorrect.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> --
> Cometstyles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>