I have some comments on Denny’s summary of events but I would like to preface my comments by noting that I have Board experience. I served several years on the Board of an organization of professions, two years on a governmental board, and (currently) on the board of a non-profit organization. I am also an active Wikipedian, who understands, but doesn’t fully buy the message in the guideline “Be Bold” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold). To oversimplify, one of the arguments in favor of Be Bold is that errors are (usually) easily rectified. While generally true in the Wikipedia world, it is not always true in other worlds, so one ought to take care in other venues, such as board actions.
I suspect I share an attribute with many board members – when I learn about a problem, I want to fix it. This typically involves (or should involve) gathering information so as to make an informed decision or recommendation.
If I were a Board member and multiple employees reached out to say that there are concerns requiring action, my first instinct would be to attempt to gather more information. However, my second instinct, which I hope would take over before the first is acted upon, is to remember that this isn’t Wikipedia where a bungled attempt at a fix can be reverted easily. One is a member of a Board, and one has responsibilities very different than a Wikipedia editor. We may think that Wikipedia has too much bureaucracy, but sometimes there are good reasons for processes, and one thing one should not do is start interactions with employees without the knowledge of other board members, one should not be promising confidentially if one simultaneously has a responsibility to share some information with fellow board members.
In other words, an honest and undoubtedly heartfelt intention to address and solve a problem as quickly as possible turned into a sticky wicket. Some board members managed to get themselves into a situation where they now had information they were both obligated to share, and had promised not to share. Once down that road, there was no “revert” button.
Retrospect, as if often said, is so clear, but in retrospect, the early indications that there were some concerns by employees should have been handled differently.
Phil (Sphilbrick)
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimedia-l-owner@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:
- Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal (Denny Vrandečić)
- Re: What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved? (Gergo Tisza)
- Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal (Michel Vuijlsteke)
- Re: Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal (Adam Wight)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 17:10:21 +0000 From: Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal Message-ID: < CAJVtBfdDkwGvRvNzOQm9eH-HoxR1xYBEKcpUK_9_eQozaZy8CA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively, this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following weeks.
With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force which was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where it was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the previous investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents, which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after several, increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with an impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an improper manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these mistakes.
Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board retreat in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board could have acted more effectively.
I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies, never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to fix the situation I suggested James’ removal.
I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is why I get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during and following the November meeting.
I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has been functioning better.
I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture of transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists of volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as the Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a faster and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and experience available for future Board members and the community.
Denny
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:23:17 +0200 From: Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved? Message-ID: <CAEVcXn1x2kwVTthdzH+Rnpb3jQ1AjbyOKMLM7dw3n+= PBPDTfw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson jjonsson@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g. Analytics or Fundraising). The mentioned https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Cookie_statement is a good way to collect all information about cookies
It really isn't. A policy document with very limited edit rights would be a maintenance nightmare and never up to date. Indeed that document omits most of the cookies used on the sites. And it never claims to list them all - while that could be made more clear, the table is actually presented as a list of examples .
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 19:39:38 +0200 From: Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal Message-ID: < CAHnyd4drrW8CDF4BYaguxN-8PnSD5Z-TrSYu-ZcZeKWc7nc+eA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
Michel On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading
to
James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written
while
I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The
text
was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
includes
post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
about
the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively, this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following weeks.
With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
which
was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
involved
outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
documents
and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where
it
was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the
previous
investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents, which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
several,
increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with
an
impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
improper
manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these
mistakes.
Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
retreat
in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board could have acted more effectively.
I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies, never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
fix
the situation I suggested James’ removal.
I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
and
following the November meeting.
I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has been functioning better.
I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture
of
transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists
of
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as
the
Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
faster
and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and experience available for future Board members and the community.
Denny _______________________________________________ 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
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:43:50 -0700 From: Adam Wight awight@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal Message-ID: < CAO82UTdccLh+-JHgrDMqJedVY1Ek041Q-Tp3_OgmOhSo4rH7pw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
What Michel said... This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to imagine some crucial, looming details.
I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking for confidentiality, strongly indicates that the staff were fearful of some sort of retribution, and each chose Board members who they personally believed would protect them. This is an educated guess, based on our siege mentality at the Foundation last November.
When the four of you were asked to hand over all information about the case, that would naturally include any personal email communications. If I were in your position, I would have respected the agreement of confidence with anyone who had contacted me, up to and maybe even beyond a subpoena, unless I had the authors' permission to release. If there is some legal reason the Board members are not allowed behave according to this standard, we need to make it very clear going forward. I doubt the staff would have had these conversations if this is the case, and they had been informed so.
I'm also concerned that there seems to be a conflation between several incidents--the original "Gang of Four" investigation was clearly a huge mess and I would hope that apologies were made all around for what happened there. However, protecting some sort of possibly compromising or personal information is another thing entirely.
Hoping for more clarity, Adam
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then
the
Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
Michel On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić" vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading
to
James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written
while
I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The
text
was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in
the
end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially
includes
post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone
calls
from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns
about
the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an
HR
head at the time, the others decided against at this moment.
Effectively,
this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the
following
weeks.
With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally
collect
and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was
not
formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force
which
was set up very quickly.
The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
involved
outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The
first
request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all
documents
and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has
been
more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting,
where
it
was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the
previous
investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the
fact
finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his
documents,
which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after
several,
increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left
with
an
impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an
improper
manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these
mistakes.
Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board
retreat
in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and
if
that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board could have acted more effectively.
I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies, never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or
understood
what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to
fix
the situation I suggested James’ removal.
I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding
of
information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members,
even
once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is
why I
get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during
and
following the November meeting.
I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has been functioning better.
I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our
culture
of
transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board
consists
of
volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as
the
Board was never set up to do so. Trustees - myself included - made mistakes. By opening up about them, I hope that we can facilitate a
faster
and more complete healing process, and also have this knowledge and experience available for future Board members and the community.
Denny _______________________________________________ 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
Subject: Digest Footer
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 9