+1 to MZMcBride comment
I strongly support us actually elected the community trustees. I have
reached out to a couple of lawyers to try to figure out how involved this
would be.
James
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:41 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Patricio Lorente wrote:
> >Today the Wikimedia Foundation B
Patricio Lorente wrote:
>Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted to remove one of
>the Trustees, Dr. James Heilman, from the Board. His term ended effective
>immediately.
>
>This was not a decision the Board took lightly. The Board has a
>responsibility to the Wikimedia movement and
> On 16 Jan 2016, at 18:39, Alex Monk wrote:
>
> On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka
> wrote:
>
>> MZMcBride writes:
>>> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google
>> Apps
>>> platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain
>> is
>>> now
On 16 January 2016 at 10:08, Yury Bulka
wrote:
> MZMcBride writes:
> > A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google
> Apps
> > platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain
> is
> > now hosted by Google.
> Are you sure? It doesn't look like wiki
Yury Bulka wrote:
>> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps
>> platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is
>> now hosted by Google.
> Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's
> servers:
> https://st
Yury Bulka wrote:
>MZMcBride writes:
>> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google
>>Apps platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org
>>domain is now hosted by Google.
>Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's
>servers:
MZMcBride writes:
> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps
> platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is
> now hosted by Google.
Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's servers:
https://starttls.in
Hoi,
To be perfectly honest, the biggest gift of Google is to recognise
Wikipedia as significant. I like to think that it is because of the
algorithms they use and even when it is not it is what makes Wikipedia
significant. When they value us not only through their algorithms and give
us money beca
James Alexander wrote:
>I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
>concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate
>for question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf"
>line of thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy
ok, if it hadn't already, this thread has now officially spun out of
control and can be marked as 'ridiculous'. Thank you for taking an
important issueand driving it so far off that I'll stop reading.
Lodewijk
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 A
its not difficult to dress mutton up as lamb
consider if you will
This person has considerable experience in HR and collaborative efforts
with most of the largest multinational technology companies. Was
instrumental in the development of a cross industry HR process that ensured
employees looking t
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Milos, is your email a wind-up?
>
> I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
> Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
> should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
You kn
Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination
process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former
process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from
late September or early October when candidates and nominations were
solicite
Milos, is your email a wind-up?
I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF re
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> from our donors, if this helps.
I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list w
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ wrote:
>
>> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>> ..
>> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
>> responsible for the trustee selection process, including
Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even
unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a
NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly
way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be
nominated. I do not k
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ wrote:
> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> ..
> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
> transparent and well governed process if nominations a
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested
>> Arnnon Geshuri
>> for a seat on the Board?
>>
>>
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members
On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
...
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
> and quite likely should not know who nominated them. I also fail to see why
> it woul
On Jan 10, 2016 12:33, "Florence Devouard" wrote:
>>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>>> you want to check some b
>
>
> Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested
> Arnnon Geshuri
> for a seat on the Board?
>
>
AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
think we are going to now - even the Board members themselves don't know,
and quite likely should not know who nominat
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote:
>
> > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested
Arnnon Geshuri
for a seat on the Board?
Sarah
_
Le 10/01/16 16:40, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote:
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
the WMF board to follow wi
Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>> you want to
Thanks Dariusz, nice example declaration for the rest of the board to
think about.
I look forward to reading about the WMF board follow-up, as this is an
easy win to demonstrate improved governance, at a time when we need to
count a few quick wins in the good-will bank.
Fae
On 10 January 2016 at
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
>
> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
you want to check some best practice examples of meani
10.01.2016 05:04 "Fæ" napisał(a):
>
> To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
> out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
> way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex.
While I don't have, and never had (nor expect to have in the futur
I totally second James' invitation to avoid a certain tone, language and
conspiracy theories.
I will also add that the more those tone, language, and conspiracy theories
are used in these threads,
the *less* likely a good chunk of the community will participate in
conversation.
If we really want t
On 01/10/2016 11:16 AM, James Alexander wrote:
> Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
>
> I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
> concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
> question however this whole
I will admit that if I knew I would likely not be wiling to say without
talking to others first. However I will never lie and I can honestly say
that I do not.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Hi James Alexander,
>
> Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommen
Hi James Alexander,
Thanks for writing here. As a WMF insider, do you know who recommended
Arnnon to the trustees for a seat on the board?
I can think of no reason why that should be a secret.
Thanks,
Fae
On 10 January 2016 at 10:16, James Alexander wrote:
> Oh dear god everyone... [This is in
Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
thought is
On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
>> Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to
>> James,
>> presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
>> appointment
>> of another from the Googleple
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board member objected to
James,
presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
appointment
of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain civil. We do n
On 10/01/2016 04:04, Comet styles wrote:
Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but
the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass
codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?
A board made up to govern a community driven project
Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but
the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass
codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?
A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with
people no one voted in decides
On January 8, 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued "a
short statement on recent comments by James Heilman". For completeness'
sake, I'm pasting the text of that statement into this thread.
---
Recently, James Heilman wrote, regarding his removal from the Wikimedia
Foundation Boa
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, geni wrote:
> On 9 January 2016 at 02:07, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in
>> understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of
>> the extraordinary complex environment of Wikimedia m
Milos Rancic wrote:
>Our technology is based on the concept from 1990s, implemented in 2001
>and slightly changed up to the moment. The only major technology which
>catches 2005 (Visual Editor) is in alpha or beta stage, depending on
>how harsh QA process would be implemented.
>
>Something should b
On 9 January 2016 at 02:07, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>
> On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in
> understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of
> the extraordinary complex environment of Wikimedia movement.
>
You aren't seriously trying that
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Nathan wrote:
> I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
> this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
> minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
> dope.
I think it's quite cl
Il 09/01/2016 01:08, Thomas Goldammer ha scritto:
2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
Our board made the decision to give Lila a
second chance in the face of staff mistrust.
Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
Th.
I wonder how did this kind of leak weigh in re
2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> Our board made the decision to give Lila a
> second chance in the face of staff mistrust.
>
Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
Th.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https:
I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
dope.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guid
James,
all these things that you answered about - being out of process,
disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you
explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words,
those are yours.
Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was no
With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke
with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of
the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these
conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these
conversations IM
On 07/01/16 06:44, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> -- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more
> transparency.
I'm inclined to believe James at this point, since he is the only one
giving a credible explanation of causes. If he was not dismissed for
this, then why was he dismiss
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> The English Wikipedia Signpost just published data from a recent staff
> survey that shows extraordinarily low confidence in senior WMF
> leadership;[1] and the WMF and Knight Foundations just published
> information about a restricted grant,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago,
> I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me.
> And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as
> openly and
Denny, regarding "I am regularly
being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer
- Google", I've never seen that absurd claim and certainly haven't made it
myself. In a comment at The Signpost and here I've asserted that you have a
fatal conflict of interest, being on the
I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and
I appreciate their attempts to address this issue. As a new member of the
Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there
is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is frustratin
Denny, there was very little substantive content in your email. As with the
explanation from other trustees, this too, has the same markings of
subterfuge and evasionary tactics. It has been established beyond doubt
that there were "trust" issues. Repeating it or any variation thereof by
another bo
Denny,
Your message is detrimental to someone I consider a friend, a trusted
colleague, and an asset to the Wikimedia movement. While I concede there
may be relevant information I don't know, I see two good reasons to view
with great skepticism your assertion that you were "unconvinced that
[somet
Its very strange to me to see a list of "James was NOT removed for X", as
if that was sufficient and an adequate substitute for saying why he was
actually removed. The problem with the Board is that they have taken this
action without actually providing any real explanation. This problem
appears to
I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is
set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took
me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.
I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that
any
I have begun a reply to the board Q & A here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ&oldid=15213281#What_happened.3F
Best
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookof
Heh (: I have no problem with those emails being published.
Just for clarification: I do believe that there is value in some
confidential and 1-on-1 communications. Where I think there is room for
change is with regards to a governing body of an open-source organization
(in this case, the WMF boar
Transparently, I suppose?
Thyge
2016-01-06 19:31 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the subjects of turnover and
> WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this.
>
> Pine
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On We
Just a note that I am continuing to discuss the subjects of turnover and
WMF employee morale with Boryana, and I have also asked Lila about this.
Pine
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin >
> wrote:
>
> > While it's not hard to
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
> While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or
> increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary of
> reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees that
> are content rarely ta
On 5 January 2016 at 23:44, Patricio Lorente wrote:
> We have also been meeting with the 2015 Election Committee regarding the
> next steps for filling the open community-selected seat.
As I pointed out recently, the phrase "community-selected" is
misleading in this context, The community do not
Ultimately this is about cost. Right now, the cheapest way for the board
to get away with this is to publish some vague statements without really
revealing anything, and hoping that the discussion will die down after a
couple of weeks.
As a community, we can drive up the cost of this strategy. Boy
While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or
increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary of
reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees that
are content rarely take the time to report this, so you end up with a
skewed sample co
Patricio,
Thank you for your email.
Some comments:
1. The document on Meta says, "Yes. James had - as all of us - access to
all documents and information which he needed for his work and
decision-making on the Board." That is a little different than the question
that was being asked here. The qu
Dear Patricio,
Thank you for this. It clarifies several of the questions, although I'm
confident community members will always have more.
As a sidenote: It would have helped if you would have mentioned that a
document with more information was forthcoming - even if it takes 8 days.
Best,
Lodewij
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Patricio Lorente wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We know that some of you have continued to have questions about the Board’s
> recent resolution. We have put together an FAQ addressing some of the most
> common or important questions. You can view the FAQ here:
>
> https://
Dear all,
We know that some of you have continued to have questions about the Board’s
recent resolution. We have put together an FAQ addressing some of the most
common or important questions. You can view the FAQ here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_He
Hello everyone (+Pine),
Thank you for reaching out.
The HR team definitely keeps an eye on turnover on a regular basis. One of
the first things I did when I started (approximately 3 months ago) is a
stats health check including turnover trends, org demographics,
compensation practices, recruiting
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Pine W wrote:
> If there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that
> dissatisfaction would be helpful to know.
Some recurring themes on Glassdoor[1] over the years are –
* Hiring of completely inexperienced staff
* Incompetent managers
*
On 2016-01-04 2:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Off the record,
Obviously not - that was part of a different email I started. :-)
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New
Off the record,
On 2016-01-04 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote:
[...] whether there will be another employee survey. If
there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that
dissatisfaction would be helpful to know.
It would, wouldn't it? Old numbers may or may not be as interesting,
b
Hi Stephen,
> If that isn't the case and staff
> are trying to communicate with the Board directly a lot, it is smoke
> pointing to a burning fire somewhere.
I seem to be missing something. Did I say anything contrary to that?
Hi Marc,
> Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the b
On 2016-01-04 1:56 AM, Pine W wrote:
I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration.
But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board.
Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the behest of the
board or not?
-- Marc
_
Pine,
Given that the way James and the Board should relate to staff was one issue
that lead to his removal, the situation in the wider WMF as an organization
is highly relevant here.
Under normal, smoothly-functioning circumstances (and most of my 4 year
tenure at WMF) there was little reason for
I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration.
But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I
would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky
circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has
been
Good point, I did not realize that page existed. I'll add it to the
Transparency Gap page Adam W started. It is curious that there were public
reports of the results of the employee survey in 2012 and 2013, but not
since.
Two other web pages relating to this come to mind:
(1) Wikipedian and fellow
> Eh I'd argue at this point we have a fairly good idea of what went on.
>
> We know from the high employee turnover in some areas and the odd slip
> (well that and pretty direct complaints
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Transparency_Gap&diff=15199687&oldid=15199605
> ) that,
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
>
>> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
>> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
>> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
>> numerous times on
I think that a broader-scoped review would be beneficial, including a
review of the Board's alignment with nonprofit governance best practices,
especially with respect to best practices surrounding the decision to
dismiss James and the subsequent actions and comments of Board members. I
believe tha
Philippe -
Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it
doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like
commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar
with Florida NPO governance. I definitely don't want to pronounce e
> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
> numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
> "Look, t
Quite right, I didn’t mean to imply (and in retrospect i understand a reading
that would miss that detail) that the verbiage in question was yours.
It was not.
pb
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
>
> I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the
again, i disagree with little (if any) of what you say that. I don’t agree
with the characterization, prior to any sort of investigation, that something
was absolutely wrong. We don’t KNOW what’s gone on, is my point.
So let’s not speculate until and unless an investigation is completed - and
I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the
verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming
from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list. It's just
such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost
certai
I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm
fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
right now I'm on his side and not on the
Kevin,
I disagree with nothing you’ve said here. What I disagreed with was the
characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place.
pb
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote:
>
> Philippe -
>
> I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest
Philippe -
I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest that
such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations and people change over
time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has been
dismissed. Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion
Comet,
I'm currently of the mind that it would be a good idea to shine the bright
light of day on some of the situation inside of WMF to help us get a clear
picture of the facts, from which I hope we can draw reasonable conclusions
and help us to make choices that lead to improvements. At this time
"My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to
justify my removal. No reason beyond that is needed per our board by
laws."
Trust does go both ways, so its either 'The Hateful Eight' who are at
the wrong here or just 'James'...This firing comes around the time
when our Project goe
This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles all of
Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last
couple of months.
On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious
to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other
side, I kno
Ofcourse you wouldn't see it, but still, as this issue kept dragging
on, things came to light and most of us here do not agree at all with
the outcome...James was elected by the community, he was not another
random person the community did not trust or hear of before being
added to the board which
I'd like to second this. Getting to the point of dismissing a trustee,
whether they're community elected or not, is serious business. There
should be an investigation conducted by an impartial external organisation,
not to lay blame or point the finger, but to recommend changes to make sure
it ne
I don't believe that's "very clear" at all. You yourself said "If what Ben
said is true" I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben
cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the sort you
We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
issues where he has his own
On 2 January 2016 at 21:25, Kevin Gorman wrote:
> Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf.
Yes, thank you. These statements cast a much needed healthy light on
the events leading up to James being kicked off the WMF board.
...
> If documents were intentionally held from James while he was sti
Thank you for coming forward, Ben and Asaf.
I'd been debating whether or not to gather more details about the handling
of this event, or for just trying to make sure that procedures went more
smoothly in case any further trustee was removed, but this calls for a
direct question: were documents int
Il giorno sab, 02/01/2016 alle 09.31 +0900, James Heilman ha scritto:
> Dear all
>
> I have been accused of three things:
> [...]
Does the board agree that these three are the things contested to James?
* Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
decisions;
* Releasing
I appreciate your speaking up, Ben.
If, while James was a board member, financial information was being
withheld from him, that would indeed be another problem that should be
included in the scope of an investigation of this situation by an outside
party. It would also be troubling to me if there
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
