Tobias wrote:
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.
Thank you for taking the time to post this summary. It's very well-written
and I think it appropriately captures what most likely happened, given the
available evidence. As for action items, I see:
* evaluate whether the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws should be changed to
make it more difficult (or easier) to remove a Board of Trustees member;
* strongly urge the Board of Trustees to be more transparent and
communicative, embracing the values that keep our projects running; and
* evaluate the process for filling community-selected Board of Trustees
seats, perhaps changing the seats to be community-elected.
Obligatory reference: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law>!
MZMcBride