Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi,

Since I am one of the few people in the movement who spoke to Arnnon
 face-to-face, I want to write that he is a really modest, while
sparking-bright person, explicitly enthusiastic about Wikimedia and free
knowledge.

I want to thank him for his maturity and confirming in action the
willingness to support our movement in any way it needs. While it was the
right thing to do, it could not have been easy, and  I have to say I really
respect that.

best,

Dariusz

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Kat Walsh  wrote:

> Thank you, Patricio.
>
> And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for
> you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the
> role, and that your considerable experience and skills would have been
> valuable. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the task, which
> is not a small thing to ask of anyone, and now in light of the
> challenges and complications it would bring, your willingness to step
> down.
>
> -Kat
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Patricio Lorente
>  wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> > Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> > internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> > paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the
> important
> > discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the
> times
> > to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for
> helping
> > us to move forward.
> >
> > The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> > selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s
> departure.
> > We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in
> our
> > community, and also to Arnnon.
> >
> > Patricio and Alice
> >
> > 
> >
> > Patricio Lorente
> > Chair, Board of Trustees
> >
> > Alice Wiegand
> > Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> > --
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:30 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
> I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
> > But ianal...
> >
> > I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
> >
> > I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he
> > might be willing to comment on this ?
> >
> >
> > Flo
> >
> > ​Hi Flo, thanks for doing that.
>
> There's another reference to this in the 22 October 2004 board meeting,
> where you agreed certain changes to the bylaws, including "​A volunteer
> member is not required to complete or sign and send any form to the
> Foundation." [1]
>
> Sarah
>
> 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22,_2004
> ___
> 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,
> 
>


Is the question of whether the bylaws ever automatically created an actual
class of members relevant? Is there something in either the bylaws or
Florida law that would prohibit the board from changing the structure of
the organization / eliminating members?

~Nathan
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Craig Franklin]

Thankyou Arnnon.  I imagine it can't have been a pleasant decision for you
to make when you obviously feel that you have a lot to contribute, but I
think your decision is in the best interests of the Foundation and of the
movement generally, and for that I am appreciative.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 28 January 2016 at 06:52, Patricio Lorente 
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
>
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
>
> Patricio and Alice
>
> 
>
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
>
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Charles Andres WMCH]

For once, I think any +1 message will be useful to demonstrate how this 
decision was expected by a large number of people,  across several language 
community.

Thanks


Charles



> Le 27 janv. 2016 à 21:52, Patricio Lorente  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
> 
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
> 
> Patricio and Alice
> 
> 
> 
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
> 
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Michael Snow]

On 1/27/2016 1:44 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:

Thank you, Patricio.

And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for
you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the
role, and that your considerable experience and skills would have been
valuable. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the task, which
is not a small thing to ask of anyone, and now in light of the
challenges and complications it would bring, your willingness to step
down.

-Kat
If Kat can echo me, then I can echo Kat. Thank you to the Board, and 
Arnnon in particular.


--Michael Snow

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Matthew Flaschen]

On 01/27/2016 03:52 PM, Patricio Lorente wrote:

Dear All,

Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board.


Thank you to Arnnon and the Board.

I'm sorry this situation arose, but this was the best way to resolve it.

Best wishes,

Matt Flaschen


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

[Comet styles]

Indeed, Steinsplitter, they are 'buying time' hoping they can sweep
everything under the rug within a week, unfortunately for them, a few
news sites have picked up on the drama including BBCArrnon may
have step down, but the issue is still there, what's to stop WMF from
hiring another person like him in the near future? The community
cannot keep voting to remove board and staff members, We don't want it
to come to a situation where the community decides to get rid of the
'foundation' for the betterment of the community..

-- 
Cometstyles

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Affiliations Committee appointments, January 2016

[Mohammed Bachounda]

congratulations to all new members and re-appointed members.

> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that, following the recent call for applications,
> the following candidates have been appointed to seats on the Affiliations
> Committee:
>
> - Salvador Alcantar Morán (re-appointment)
> - Carlos M. Colina (re-appointment)
> - Galileo Vidoni (re-appointment)
> - Emna Mizouni
> - Tanweer Morshed
> - Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>
> The newly appointed (and re-appointed) members will serve two-year terms,
> ending in December 2017.
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to thank each of the
> applicants, as well as all of the community members who took the time to
> offer their feedback on the candidates during the public review process.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee

-- 

*Mohammed Bachounda*
Leader Wikimedia Algérie UG
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Florence Devouard]

Le 27/01/16 12:59, SarahSV a écrit :

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:


Hi Adam

The WMF has never been a membership based organization.


​Hi Anthere,


The bylaws as of September 2004 said: [1]

"​
This membership [
​v​
olunteer active membership] shall consist of all persons interested in
supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a
user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request
deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation
of a user account on some Wikimedia project."
​

And:

"Each Volunteer Active Member and each Contributing Active Member shall
have the right to vote for the Volunteer User Representative to the Board
of Trustees."


Does that not suggest that the Foundation had a voting membership, and that
one form of membership was extended to anyone who had created a user
account? It did not set up dues, but is that necessary to establish
membership?



I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
But ianal...

I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.

I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he 
might be willing to comment on this ?



Flo





 The bylaws were changed in 2006 and now say: "The Foundation does not have

members."

Sarah


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws=620#ARTICLE_III:_MEMBERSHIP

___
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, 






___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Shani]

+1.

Shani.
On 28 Jan 2016 08:18, "Michael Snow"  wrote:

> On 1/27/2016 1:44 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Patricio.
>>
>> And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for
>> you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the
>> role, and that your considerable experience and skills would have been
>> valuable. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the task, which
>> is not a small thing to ask of anyone, and now in light of the
>> challenges and complications it would bring, your willingness to step
>> down.
>>
>> -Kat
>>
> If Kat can echo me, then I can echo Kat. Thank you to the Board, and
> Arnnon in particular.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Wikimedia Bangladesh has a new Executive Committee

[Subhashish Panigrahi]

Wow, three friends already! :)

Congratulations everyone. Looking forward to hear more on the new EC's
work soon.

Best,
Subha

On 1/27/2016 7:02 PM, Tanvir Rahman wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It is my pleasure to inform you that the Wikimedia Bangladesh has a
> new Executive Committee (aka Board) to the serve the chapter for the
> term 2016-2018.
>
> 27 of a total 43 regular members and 1 of 2 supporting members were
> present in the General Meeting on January 15, 2016 which took place
> early before the inauguration of Wikipedia's 15th birthday party. The
> new committee was elected by the vote of regular members who were
> present at the general meeting in person.
>
> Minutes of the General Meeting can be found here
> .
> Unfortunately it is in Bangla, and English version is not available yet.
>
> The following members were elected to serve the Executive Committee.
>
> 1. Munir Hasan 
> 2. Tanvir Rahman 
> 3. Tanweer Morshed 
> 4. Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive
> 
> 5. Nahid Sultan 
> 6. Shabab Mustafa 
> 7. A. K. Al Mohiuddin 
> 8. Masum-Al-Hasan Rocky
> 
> 9. Ali Haidar Khan 
>
> We have not elected the new office bearers (president, secretary, and
> treasurer) yet. According to our bylaws they get elected by the vote
> of EC members internally. It may take a week or two more. Once they
> are elected, we would be happy to inform the community with an update.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tanvir Rahman
> Secretary
> Wikimedia Bangladesh
>
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

-- 
Best!
Subhashish Panigrahi
Programme Officer, Access To Knowledge
Centre for Internet and Society
@subhapa / https://cis-india.org

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Wikimedia Bangladesh has a new Executive Committee

[Risker]

Congratulations and thanks to the new Bangladeshi board.

Risker/Anne

On 27 January 2016 at 12:46, Subhashish Panigrahi 
wrote:

> Wow, three friends already! :)
>
> Congratulations everyone. Looking forward to hear more on the new EC's
> work soon.
>
> Best,
> Subha
>
> On 1/27/2016 7:02 PM, Tanvir Rahman wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > It is my pleasure to inform you that the Wikimedia Bangladesh has a
> > new Executive Committee (aka Board) to the serve the chapter for the
> > term 2016-2018.
> >
> > 27 of a total 43 regular members and 1 of 2 supporting members were
> > present in the General Meeting on January 15, 2016 which took place
> > early before the inauguration of Wikipedia's 15th birthday party. The
> > new committee was elected by the vote of regular members who were
> > present at the general meeting in person.
> >
> > Minutes of the General Meeting can be found here
> > <
> https://bd.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Bangladesh_First_Annual_General_Meeting_2016_15_January_2016.pdf
> >.
> > Unfortunately it is in Bangla, and English version is not available yet.
> >
> > The following members were elected to serve the Executive Committee.
> >
> > 1. Munir Hasan 
> > 2. Tanvir Rahman 
> > 3. Tanweer Morshed  >
> > 4. Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive
> > 
> > 5. Nahid Sultan 
> > 6. Shabab Mustafa 
> > 7. A. K. Al Mohiuddin <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moheen_Reeyad>
> > 8. Masum-Al-Hasan Rocky
> > 
> > 9. Ali Haidar Khan  >
> >
> > We have not elected the new office bearers (president, secretary, and
> > treasurer) yet. According to our bylaws they get elected by the vote
> > of EC members internally. It may take a week or two more. Once they
> > are elected, we would be happy to inform the community with an update.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Tanvir Rahman
> > Secretary
> > Wikimedia Bangladesh
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
> --
> Best!
> Subhashish Panigrahi
> Programme Officer, Access To Knowledge
> Centre for Internet and Society
> @subhapa / https://cis-india.org
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[geni]

On 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri  wrote:

> Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
> That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
> mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
> throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
> as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
> and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
> evolve over time as circumstances change.
>
>
>
> As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
> running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
> were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
> to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
> speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
> the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
> those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
> has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
> my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
> members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
> trust in me.


Nice polished PR spiel. A bit too polished in my view since it reduces the
chance of people empathizing with you but hey I understand that you have to
keep the lawyers happy. Of course that's part of the reason why its
unreasonable to expect wikipedians to deal with you let alone trust you.



>   I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
> important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
> contributors, and users.
>

Hmm? The WMF appears to have already hit its fundraising limit. At this
point further growth isn't really on the list of things we want.





> As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
> thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
> right.


You've already said that the way you work is doing what your bosses tell
you and we know that wasn't right:

"I have been charged with enforcing company policies
as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
and consistently."



>   I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
> careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
> Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.


Decade? You weren't caught until 2010. That isn't a decade ago.


>  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
> issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
> the heart,


People who speak from the heart doesn't speak in highly polished legally
cleared PR statements. They speak like RMS or Jason Scott which is one of
the things that make them annoying.


-- 
geni
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
> But ianal...
>
> I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
>
> I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he
> might be willing to comment on this ?
>
>
> Flo
>
> ​Hi Flo, thanks for doing that.

There's another reference to this in the 22 October 2004 board meeting,
where you agreed certain changes to the bylaws, including "​A volunteer
member is not required to complete or sign and send any form to the
Foundation." [1]

Sarah

1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22,_2004
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

On 26.01.2016 21:54, Fæ wrote:
> Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy
> Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that
> rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2]

Published today on numerama.com, top digital news web site (2 millions
visitors/month and primary information source for people interested in
digital liberties, net neutrality, etc.) in France:
http://www.numerama.com/business/141371-wikipedia-secoue-par-une-nomination-contestee.html

If I remember how WMUK was "treated" by a few WMF representatives during
the Bamkin's controversy I can only state that their is a two-tiers
evaluation system of this kind or crisis.

Emmanuel
-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Austin Hair]

Even if it is a bit long-winded, I could not agree more. Thank you, Mike.

Austin

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Michael Snow 
wrote:

> Hello Arnnon,
>
> It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions
> in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet
> while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it
> extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will
> bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.
>
> Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately
> rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been
> the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been
> misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what
> those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully
> understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free
> to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations.
> However, the inability to provide more information is itself a major
> handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes
> doubly destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy
> theories and denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond
> effectively.
>
> I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been
> touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting
> practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of
> responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have
> done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have
> understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you
> do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position
> to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily
> disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained
> on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been
> following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get
> people to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the
> mistake. I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if
> you cannot do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply
> will never be able to earn it from many people. This is another way in
> which silence becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on
> enough that you can function in your role, but the issue will continue to
> hang over everything you do.
>
> The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in
> human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive
> experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I
> can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of
> expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my
> tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types
> of issues were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as
> Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how
> your appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your
> skills and contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the
> problematic pieces of your background also reflect directly on the same
> area. Considerations such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I
> cannot imagine how having someone associated with these practices on the
> Board would be anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would
> acknowledge it to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at
> all really, I think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it
> would take an incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the
> damage your mere presence on the Board is likely to cause.
>
> I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort
> of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your
> personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at
> least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the
> table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a
> heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and
> better ways of approaching this.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
>
>> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
>> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how
>> amazing
>> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
>> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
>> overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
>> fifteen years and beyond.   

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

It is not just in BBC and numerama, it is all over the web: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri#Press

Bad PR for WMF and WP  :-/

To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
From: kel...@kiwix.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:25:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia 
Community

On 26.01.2016 21:54, Fæ wrote:
> Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy
> Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that
> rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2]
 
Published today on numerama.com, top digital news web site (2 millions
visitors/month and primary information source for people interested in
digital liberties, net neutrality, etc.) in France:
http://www.numerama.com/business/141371-wikipedia-secoue-par-une-nomination-contestee.html
 
If I remember how WMUK was "treated" by a few WMF representatives during
the Bamkin's controversy I can only state that their is a two-tiers
evaluation system of this kind or crisis.
 
Emmanuel
-- 
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
 

___
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,  
  
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Patricio Lorente]

Dear All,

Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
us to move forward.

The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
community, and also to Arnnon.

Patricio and Alice



Patricio Lorente
Chair, Board of Trustees

Alice Wiegand
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
--
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> hi Lodewijk,
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
> > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
> give
> > a clear time table for further updates.
>
> let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to
> follow up with an update in a week or less.
>

I hope that you follow through with this plan, and give us a post-mortem in
a week's time.
 --scott
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Thank you, Arnnon!



Indeed. Thank you, Arnnon, and best wishes to you.

Given that this matter is concluded, can the board now please come to a
decision on whether the Knight Foundation grant letter and grant
application documents will be posted on Meta, and if not, provide an
explanation to the community why they cannot be made public?

To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then.

Andreas

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=698861097=698860874
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Chris Keating]

>
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
>
>
Thank you, Arnnon (and the rest of the board) for making the right
decision.

Chris
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Sydney Poore]

Thank you Arnnon for helping us move forward.

Sydney
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration


On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> Thank you, Arnnon!
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Patricio Lorente
>  wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
>> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
>> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
>> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
>> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
>> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
>> us to move forward.
>>
>> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
>> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
>> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
>> community, and also to Arnnon.
>>
>> Patricio and Alice
>>
>> 
>>
>> Patricio Lorente
>> Chair, Board of Trustees
>>
>> Alice Wiegand
>> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
>> --
>> ___
>> 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, 
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Lilburne]

On 27/01/2016 21:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:


Thank you, Arnnon!



Indeed. Thank you, Arnnon, and best wishes to you.




This is a reminder that very little touched by Google remains untainted, 
in the UK we hope that George Osborne follows suite.



___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Vituzzu]

Thank you Arnnon.

Vito

Il 27/01/2016 21:52, Patricio Lorente ha scritto:

Dear All,

Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
us to move forward.

The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
community, and also to Arnnon.

Patricio and Alice



Patricio Lorente
Chair, Board of Trustees

Alice Wiegand
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
--
___
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, 




___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Anna Stillwell]

Thank you for the update. I'm sure that it has been difficult for all
involved.
Best wishes,
/a

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Lilburne 
wrote:

> On 27/01/2016 21:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Arnnon!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed. Thank you, Arnnon, and best wishes to you.
>>
>>
>>
> This is a reminder that very little touched by Google remains untainted,
> in the UK we hope that George Osborne follows suite.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Milos Rancic]

Thank you, Arnnon!

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Patricio Lorente
 wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
>
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
>
> Patricio and Alice
>
> 
>
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
>
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
Milos

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Nathan]

Thank you Patricio and Arnnon, and good luck and best wishes to Arnnon.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Kat Walsh]

Thank you, Patricio.

And thank you, Arnnon. I am sure this must have been difficult for
you, that you had every intention of bringing your best work to the
role, and that your considerable experience and skills would have been
valuable. I appreciate your willingness to step up to the task, which
is not a small thing to ask of anyone, and now in light of the
challenges and complications it would bring, your willingness to step
down.

-Kat

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Patricio Lorente
 wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
>
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
>
> Patricio and Alice
>
> 
>
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
>
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:

"...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
be made public?

"To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales=698861097=698860874

Anthony Cole
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
> The WMF has never been a membership based organization.
>
>
> ​Hi Anthere,

The bylaws as of September 2004 said: [1]

"​
This membership [
​v​
olunteer active membership] shall consist of all persons interested in
supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a
user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request
deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation
of a user account on some Wikimedia project."
​

And:

"Each Volunteer Active Member and each Contributing Active Member shall
have the right to vote for the Volunteer User Representative to the Board
of Trustees."


Does that not suggest that the Foundation had a voting membership, and that
one form of membership was extended to anyone who had created a user
account? It did not set up dues, but is that necessary to establish
membership?

The bylaws were changed in 2006 and now say: "The Foundation does not have
members."

Sarah


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws=620#ARTICLE_III:_MEMBERSHIP

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Kat Walsh]

I was considering whether to comment again on this thread, but with
this message I do not have to; I think it lays everything out
sensitively and thoughtfully, and I agree with everything in it.

-Kat


On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> Hello Arnnon,
>
> It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in
> the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while
> you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely
> difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the
> benefits that may have been contemplated.
>
> Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately
> rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been
> the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been
> misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what
> those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully
> understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to
> elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However,
> the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the
> role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly
> destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and
> denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
>
> I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been
> touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting
> practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of
> responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have
> done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have
> understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you
> do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position
> to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily
> disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained
> on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been
> following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people
> to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake.
> I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot
> do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be
> able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence
> becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you
> can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over
> everything you do.
>
> The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human
> resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and
> you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also
> appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise.
> While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it
> has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues
> were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and
> afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your
> appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and
> contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces
> of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations
> such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how
> having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be
> anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it
> to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I
> think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an
> incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere
> presence on the Board is likely to cause.
>
> I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of
> positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal
> history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to
> explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the
> context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you
> would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of
> approaching this.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
>>
>> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
>> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how
>> amazing
>> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
>> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Ben Creasy]

Arnnon Geshuri  writes:

>

Hi Arnnon - nicely worded message! I can't imagine that you're feeling too great
right now, but I want to give you a little hope. Wikipedia can be a forgiving 
place - many have been blocked and banned only to return later for second or 
third chances. We take who we can get, because we can't afford to be too picky.

If you're really looking to prove yourself, we are in a weird way fortunate.
Some of the appointed (and even nonappointed) board members don't seem highly
engaged with the English Wikipedia, and you're actually facing the consequence
of board neglect of the community right now. My concern with someone like
yourself, given that you don't seem to have prior interest in Wikipedia, is that
you're actually looking for little extra conversation filler when you're rubbing
elbows with powerful folks at cocktail parties. I hope you prove me wrong. Jimbo
Wales gets a lot of flak, but I appreciate the fact that he's there on 
Wikipedia. I prefer him over someone who is basically "phoning it in" once or 
twice a year.

So, the "SF Bay" group of Wikimedians could use some extra love. I gather you're
not too far from San Francisco? I've been in San Francisco for a year and I 
think I missed one or two meetups, but that's not very many and I hear DC is
much more active. When I went to the 15th anniversary meetup, there were a fair
number who had never edited and most of the veterans had never been to an 
editathon (and neither have I). I collected as many emails as I could, but I 
imagine you'd have more connections of potential new volunteers - 
let's connect and try to get a regular (even as rare as quarterly or twice a 
year) meetup/editathon happening in San Francisco. I've done a fair bit of 
editing on corporate governance and nonprofits, and I'd be happy to show you 
around.

I understand that the antitrust settlement is, in the scheme of corporate 
scandals, somewhat mild. It's not Arthur Andersen and Enron or subprime 
mortgages. Although people do go to prison for antitrust violations (which is in
some cases a felony, per the Sherman Act), this case didn't involve criminal 
charges. Despite what the textbooks say, I believe it's difficult to succeed as 
an executive without being unethical. In picking my battles I've been a part of 
things I'm not proud of even in my limited career.

Power does funny things to people. It's been shown that powerful people are 3
times as likely to help a stranger in distress.[1] Powerful people focus on 
the rewards and take risks but they lack broader perspective and can easily 
objectify people or ignore social norms or laws, as we see over and over with 
executives.

We need a powerful person on Wikipedia's board to help steer them towards 
sensible decisions. The board's judgment seems to be lacking, especially when 
they made the remarkably poor decision (for their reputation) to spark this 
controversy by removing James even though he was upholding their odd omerta by 
not leaking to the community the 90% disapproval of the executive director among
staff and the new (yet to be fully revealed) partnership with the Knight 
Foundation. In the end, it's actually worked out for the best since it sparked 
a conversation that needed to happen.

I'm not sure you're the powerful person who can pull WMF out of this ditch, but 
if you are, I'd say a worthwhile step would be to take a shot at getting your 
hands dirty in the trenches of Wikipedia as an editor and join me in trying to 
recruit volunteers in the Bay. Plus James should be appointed back to his
rightful place on the board.

[1] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20080908051020/http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/
news/whatsnew/mbaupdate08.htm


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Kevin Gorman]

"As a current WMF staff member, and having received a formal scolding two weeks
ago for expressing my professional and personal opinions on this list--that
a hierarchical corporate structure is completely inappropriate and
ineffectual for running the Foundation--I don't feel safe editorializing
about what  membership could mean for the future of the Wikimedia
movement.  But I would be thrilled to see this discussion take place, and
to contribute however I am able."

I find this paragraph deeply disturbing.  Historically, members of the
Wikimedia movement, including those who work directly for WMF, have been
completely free to vehemently advocate their opinions about both how the
work of the Wikimedia movement should be done, and about whether or not a
particular line of behavior fell within our against our movement's values -
including on public lists.  Although it was on internal-l, I even remember
a thread where a seniorish person in HR announced that they had just gotten
a certification in something (I can't honestly recall what,) and it started
a thread where multiple staff members started posted peer reviewed papers
(and metareviews, etc,) published in highend journals that brought the
value of what the HR person had gotten in to severe question - it basically
made it look like at most it had absolutely no effect - and multiple staff
members asked about whether or not the certification had been paid for by
WMF, and if it had, asked the HR person to reimburse the cost of the cert
because since there was solid evidence it was useless, it was a waste of
donor money.

In all of the recent brouhaha, at least some WMF staffers have come forward
with their opinions, and many more have made their opinions obvious.
Historically, that's been a fine thing, and a lot of positive change has
come about as a result of it.  That's one of the things I loved about
coming in to WMF as an intern and later as a contractor - I was encouraged
to publicly question things if I thought they were flawed or I could
improve process - and I did. Even though it wasn't at all my department, I
remember within my first week as a communication intern noticing a severe
flaw in the calculation of the metrics Zack Exley, a C level in a different
department, was using.  When I asked my boss what to do, her answer was
pretty much "... if you're sure they're his metrics just email him.  If you
aren't sure whose they are, email internal asking.  If you noticed an issue
somewhere else, you should still absolutely get it fixed."  I dropped Zack
an email (who is now one of Bernie's senior advisors,) and he promptly
gratefully fixed the problem though, iirc, it made his stats sad.  While at
WMF, I expressed strong opinions on both internal and foundation-l, was
encouraged to do so regarding most things, and was joined in doing so by a
lot of actual staffers.

I brought up a number of other relatively serious questions about practices
and values while actively at WMF, including in public forums, and a lot of
staffers did, too.  I saw way more good things happen from staffers feeling
free to openly speak out than bad things.  It's disturbing to me that
there's been a cultural shift towards a hierarchical structure that
discourages open and blunt dialogue even on public lists - and it's a
cultural shift that hasn't been talked about much outside of WMF directly.
It's also iffy from a practical standpoint.  I hate to call out a specific
person, but *Tim Starling* has expressed extremely strong feelings about
recent events in public on this list.  You can't really fire Tim, or a
number of other staffers who have spoken out publicly, because they are
Wikimedia.  If the culture inside WMF stays this way and people like Tim,
WMF's longest standing employee get disciplined if they speak out
publicly... The Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation are going
to rapidly diverge.

All of the content that WMF relies on to raise money is freely licensed,
built by volunteers, and although difficult technically, is forkable.  The
social capital that allows WMF to raise $70m+ a year belongs far more to
the movement than to the Foundation, and if they do start to diverge
further, that's going to put WMF in a tough situation.  I know one of the
risks in the strat document this year is decreased revenue from
fundraising... part of me is seriously starting to wonder if that's a risk
pretty much created by WMF's recent behavor.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> It would be interesting to know if the people who participated in that
> decision actually had the legal authority to make it. They might have, but
> this would be worth further inquiry.
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:03 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Adam Wight 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear friends,
> > >
> > > Recent events have made me curious to learn more 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[billinghurst]

I appreciate that you have responded to the community outcry, though I
fear that the flowery rhetoric was not only lost on me, it also seems
to be obfusacting on the serious matters raised. The substantial
matters themselves rated a direct mention or a skerrick of
acknowledgement.

I believe that the community has clearly expressed that while you may
have a significant HR/P background, the dark shadow that you drag
into the Wikimedia is not one which a sizeable proportion of
interested and knowledgeable participants believes outweighs a clear,
untarnished integrity [1]

From your people management background, you cannot seriously have us
believe that

And you may be the fall guy / scapegoat / ...for the board's
short-sighted appointment / inexacting process / evident lack of
diligence; however, that may be the role that you need to take so that
the Board can get the clear air to regain the trust that it has lost.
Until that time we peasants may well be revolting.  Who knows, this
time maybe we can create a white-out, rather than a black-out.[2][3]
Risk-denial, risk-blindness and obstinacy are not traits that I see as
valuable in members of boards.

Further, I believe that there would surely be candidates with similar
people management credentials who don't have the dead weight. That
they may not have worked for Google, be male, or be in the Bay area
may be a problem, ... oh no ... maybe not!

Be pragmatic, it is clearly time for pragmatism. Please resign, as at
this time the hole has been dug by you and others has broken through
to the other side you have no base, there is no real return.

Regards, Billinghurst


[1]  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri/sig=15282351
currently running at 263 no confidence votes, compared to 21.  noting
that ref includes significant number of voices of clear reason and
office holders, senior and highly trusted volunteers within the WMF
movement who have a demonstrated history of intent, and integrity.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

I am not satisfied at all by this update. I have the feeling the Board want to 
wait until the community cools down. The boar was very fast in kicking out 
James for no obvious reason. But for removing Arnnon Geshuri (per community 
consensus, after a lot of drama) weeks are needed.  The Board and all other 
Functionary positions only exist because the community has written articles 
etc.  Now you, the Board, want ignore the community? Seriously? I have the 
feeling that the WMF is some sort of a autocracy right now. WMF schould be 
democratic. The community is not trolling the WMF, they simple care about 
wikimedia projects.

Geshuri must be removed from the Board ASAP. Community consensus to do so 
exists. Again: Please don't ignore the community.

--Steinsplitter

> From: awieg...@wikimedia.org
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:14:07 +0100
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board
> 
> Dear all,
> the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
> raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
> are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
> 
> In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
> support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
> human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
> expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
> people, and supported their progress as finalists.
> 
> We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
> 
> Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
> we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
> 
> Alice.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alice Wiegand
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> ___
> 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, 
> 
  
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

I want + Fae's recent post which is attached below.


> From: fae...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:54:03 +
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia   
> Community
> 
> On 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri  wrote:
> ...
> > Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
> > That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
> > mitigating considerations.
> 
> There are black and white facts which make you unsuitable to be a WMF
> trustee, and which the board of trustees who appointed you were not
> all aware of beforehand because you did not think that your key role
> in the antitrust scandal was an issue of ethics worth explaining. Your
> email statement does not address these key problems and manages to use
> a lot of peacock prose which when struck out amounts to "Wikimedians
> should move along now, nothing to see".
> 
> Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy
> Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that
> rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2] As Pine has stated
> here, "your membership on the Board presents significant and
> unnecessary risks", though the fact is that your failure to resign
> gracefully is not a risk, but a major incident and an embarrassment.
> 
> Resign your unpaid trusteeship now, as you should have done a
> fortnight ago, and save your fellow trustees the indignity of trying
> to justify their bad governance in your appointment, rather than
> honestly admit failure and reverse their decision.
> 
> Links
> 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208
> 2. 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal/
> 
> P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for
> the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his
> chequered past when they did so.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Fae
> -- 
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 
  
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

[Ruslan Takayev]

Alice, et al

Ars Technica have now reported on Arnnon's statement, and your statement.[1]

Their previous article[2] touches on the Meta discussion.

Le Monde has also published an article on this debacle,[3] as a result
of the original Ars Technica piece.

Please take the time to read the comments. People are already
cancelling their regular donations to the Foundation in response to
Arnnon's appointment to the BoT.

Forget about "Wikimedians" for a moment. ^ ^ (John Q Public) are the
people you have to convince that Arnnon is worthy of being a WMF
Trustee. As you can see from many of the comments, the public thus far
does not believe he is.

Given the Ars Technica article has led to the BBC, Le Monde, etc
picking up on the story, I'm not really sure you have the ability to
delay a full explanation for another week, as this is possibly going
to blow up in your faces long before then.

Warm regards,



Ruslan Takayev


[1] 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/wikimedia-board-official-responds-to-editors-geshuri-is-an-excellent-candidate
[2] 
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal/
[3] 
http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/01/26/une-motion-de-defiance-contre-un-administrateur-de-wikimedia_4854041_4408996.html

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> Dear all,
> the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have
> raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board
> are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
>
> In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we needed
> support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning, and
> human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on their
> expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates and
> people, and supported their progress as finalists.
>
> We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
>
> Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response, and
> we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
>
> Alice.
>
>
>
> --
> Alice Wiegand
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Ziko van Dijk]

I cannot word it better than Michael Snow, so I won't try.
Kind regards
Ziko

2016-01-27 8:39 GMT+01:00 Michael Snow :
> Hello Arnnon,
>
> It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in
> the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while
> you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely
> difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the
> benefits that may have been contemplated.
>
> Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately
> rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been
> the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been
> misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what
> those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully
> understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to
> elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However,
> the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the
> role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly
> destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and
> denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
>
> I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been
> touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting
> practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of
> responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have
> done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have
> understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you
> do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position
> to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily
> disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained
> on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been
> following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people
> to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake.
> I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot
> do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be
> able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence
> becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you
> can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over
> everything you do.
>
> The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human
> resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and
> you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also
> appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise.
> While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it
> has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues
> were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and
> afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your
> appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and
> contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces
> of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations
> such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how
> having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be
> anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it
> to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I
> think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an
> incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere
> presence on the Board is likely to cause.
>
> I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of
> positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal
> history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to
> explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the
> context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you
> would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of
> approaching this.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
>>
>> It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
>> representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how
>> amazing
>> the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
>> dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
>> overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
>> fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Kevin Gorman]

Hi Ben, Arnnon -

There will be at least two bay area editathons in March, which I'll
announce when I finalize the details of.  At least one of them is going to
be at least partially closed due to the nature of the host, but one should
be fully open... and Arnnon, you are invited to both of them.  I realize
full-well the board needs your skillset - really pretty badly - but don't
see a way right now you can possibly serve as a trustee.  I hold no grudge
against you and would be happy to see you at March's editathons and help
introduce you more directly to the community and editing Wikipedia about
subjects you're interested in... it's just really hard to see you
successful in a fiduciary role, and my doubts here are magnified by other
ongoing situations.


Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Ben Creasy  wrote:

> Arnnon Geshuri  writes:
>
> >
>
> Hi Arnnon - nicely worded message! I can't imagine that you're feeling too
> great
> right now, but I want to give you a little hope. Wikipedia can be a
> forgiving
> place - many have been blocked and banned only to return later for second
> or
> third chances. We take who we can get, because we can't afford to be too
> picky.
>
> If you're really looking to prove yourself, we are in a weird way
> fortunate.
> Some of the appointed (and even nonappointed) board members don't seem
> highly
> engaged with the English Wikipedia, and you're actually facing the
> consequence
> of board neglect of the community right now. My concern with someone like
> yourself, given that you don't seem to have prior interest in Wikipedia,
> is that
> you're actually looking for little extra conversation filler when you're
> rubbing
> elbows with powerful folks at cocktail parties. I hope you prove me wrong.
> Jimbo
> Wales gets a lot of flak, but I appreciate the fact that he's there on
> Wikipedia. I prefer him over someone who is basically "phoning it in" once
> or
> twice a year.
>
> So, the "SF Bay" group of Wikimedians could use some extra love. I gather
> you're
> not too far from San Francisco? I've been in San Francisco for a year and I
> think I missed one or two meetups, but that's not very many and I hear DC
> is
> much more active. When I went to the 15th anniversary meetup, there were a
> fair
> number who had never edited and most of the veterans had never been to an
> editathon (and neither have I). I collected as many emails as I could, but
> I
> imagine you'd have more connections of potential new volunteers -
> let's connect and try to get a regular (even as rare as quarterly or twice
> a
> year) meetup/editathon happening in San Francisco. I've done a fair bit of
> editing on corporate governance and nonprofits, and I'd be happy to show
> you
> around.
>
> I understand that the antitrust settlement is, in the scheme of corporate
> scandals, somewhat mild. It's not Arthur Andersen and Enron or subprime
> mortgages. Although people do go to prison for antitrust violations (which
> is in
> some cases a felony, per the Sherman Act), this case didn't involve
> criminal
> charges. Despite what the textbooks say, I believe it's difficult to
> succeed as
> an executive without being unethical. In picking my battles I've been a
> part of
> things I'm not proud of even in my limited career.
>
> Power does funny things to people. It's been shown that powerful people
> are 3
> times as likely to help a stranger in distress.[1] Powerful people focus on
> the rewards and take risks but they lack broader perspective and can easily
> objectify people or ignore social norms or laws, as we see over and over
> with
> executives.
>
> We need a powerful person on Wikipedia's board to help steer them towards
> sensible decisions. The board's judgment seems to be lacking, especially
> when
> they made the remarkably poor decision (for their reputation) to spark this
> controversy by removing James even though he was upholding their odd
> omerta by
> not leaking to the community the 90% disapproval of the executive director
> among
> staff and the new (yet to be fully revealed) partnership with the Knight
> Foundation. In the end, it's actually worked out for the best since it
> sparked
> a conversation that needed to happen.
>
> I'm not sure you're the powerful person who can pull WMF out of this
> ditch, but
> if you are, I'd say a worthwhile step would be to take a shot at getting
> your
> hands dirty in the trenches of Wikipedia as an editor and join me in
> trying to
> recruit volunteers in the Bay. Plus James should be appointed back to his
> rightful place on the board.
>
> [1]
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20080908051020/http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/
> news/whatsnew/mbaupdate08.htm
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Andre Engels]

From the discussion on the creation of Wikimedia I remember that there
definitely was an intention to have members involved in the election
of the board. Apart from the appointed board members, there would be
two community selected members - one chosen by the editing community,
the other by the financial contributing community. However, because
there was no membership yet at the time, the first two community board
members were 'for now' both elected by the editing community. Later,
when it was decided, or when it became clear, that there would not be
paying members, the seat (with the extension of the board, seats) that
had been intended to be filled by the paying members, was changed into
the current chapter-selected board seats.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for
> the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his
> chequered past when they did so.
>


According to the minutes for the November board meeting,[1] Boryana Dineva
and Dariusz Jemielniak led the presentation on board recruitment on that
occasion.

Dariusz would seem to have known little about Arnnon, judging by his
comments about googling him, so I don't think it was his idea. But Boryana
must have been very familiar with Arnnon, given that she worked at Tesla HR
before joining the Foundation last year (Arnnon is VP of Human Resources at
Tesla).

Of course that does not mean that putting Arnnon on the WMF board was
Boryana's idea, but she clearly played a significant role in the relevant
discussions.

Andreas

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07#Board_Recruiting
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[Florence Devouard]

Hi Adam

The WMF has never been a membership based organization.

Actually, what happened (roughly) is this.

1) WMF is created in 2003. Legal obligation is to have at least 3 board 
members. Jimmy create it and ask two people working with him at that 
time to join the board. Those were Michael Davis and Tim Shell.
Fairly standard situation, that I have seen over and over, upon creation 
of similar organizations. So at this point, all 3 board members are 
appointed.


Jimmy indicates that he thinks community members should have space on 
the board and that he will make sure something is done before one year 
to get two additional people on board. Jimmy transfers any already 
existing asset to WMF (that was basically a couple of servers, a couple 
of domain names...).


Keep in mind that at this point... the Foundation is basically nothing 
except an administrative entity. And an entity to which people can send 
money to get new servers instead of sending money to Jimmy. But there is 
nothing else. And certainly no complicated procedures, no mission 
statement, no office, no staff. Just a paper, a couple servers and 
quickly a bank account I suppose :)


Bylaws ? IF there were bylaws, these were quick copy and paste of 
generic bylaws for the purpose of having bylaws. I am not even sure 
there were some back then when it was *created*... I suppose there was 
something...


Honestly... that was NO ONE concern back in 2003. Our concern is that 
Wikipedia was Lohipedia. To be very specific... there were times where 
from France I could only access Wikipedia in the morning. As soon as 
America woke up, there was so much lag that Wikipedia was simply not 
accessible. Our concern was tech. And tech meant "who owns the servers" 
and "how do we buy servers" etc.



2) In the following year, Jimbo set up first real bylaws with Alex. 
Those were not specifically discussed with community from memory. I 
think what happened is that Alex told Jimbo we needed bylaws. Jimbo said 
yes. Alex drafted something. And done.
Did they get through lengthy discussions and many lenses for proofing ? 
Not. Again... it was sincerely not the biggest concern then.
And yes... these bylaws were VERY complicated with regards to 
membership. There were Contributing Members, Volunteer Active, Honorary etc.
Why such a complexity ? Absolutely not in the perspective of board 
elections. It was made this way because at that time, it was perceived 
the way we would fund Wikipedia would be by membership fees.


We were looking for a model to fund us. First "inputs" were from Jimbo, 
his company and a few wealthy community members. But this was not 
sustainable. Original discussions included putting ads on the website 
(which led to the Spanish fork), selling tee-shirts, or getting fees 
from members...



3) A year after the creation, as promised, Jimbo made it so that a first 
vote be held to elect the first two trustees from the community (Angela 
and I). Tim and Richard stayed there, so practically we have 3 
self-appointed and 2 elected. That was in 2004.



4) At the first board meeting in summer 2004, Angela, Jimbo and I 
discussed finances.
To put things in perspective, the WMF was still pretty much a piece of 
paper, with a few servers, a bank account and a bunch of domain names. 
And bylaws of some sorts...
Wikimedia DE was already created and Wikimedia FR was just starting, so 
we had a couple of chapters already.
So logical thing to do at a board meeting... discussing those membership 
fees described in the bylaws and tossing figures.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership_fees
This page is interesting on this matter.

At this point, who cares about "electing board members" and how members 
would elect or appoint board members ? We just had an election. All 
good. What matters really is "how do we collect this cash we need to 
operate Wikipedia".



5) Over the following few months, we discuss this membership concept and 
basically conclude that it is simply not implementable. The discussion 
is not only "amongst board members", but largely on the mailing lists 
and meta. The membership structure is too complicated. How do we ensure 
privacy (most participants are anonymous) with membership and fees 
(which is impossible if members are anonymous). How do we manage fees in 
a world where 60 dollars is nothing for one but a hell of a cost for 
another ? Do we give more decision weight to those giving more ? How do 
we manage many members given that we have... no staff ?


Do we seek professional opinion on this ? Yes and no. We have no cash to 
pay expert feedback.


So is that "membership" thing implemented ? No. Never.

6) It is only when Brad Patrick joins in probono that the conversation 
about bylaws and membership came turn into something more practical. 
Brad proposes to rewrite bylaws and we accept this help wholeheartedly.


By then... we are in 2005-2006 and beginning to figure out that we could 
manage without putting 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

[WereSpielChequers]

Whether or not the decision against having a membership system was legal, 
reversing that decision would be a timely and practical way for the WMF to 
start to reengage with the community.

Past concerns that a membership system would require staff are now moot - we 
have staff.

Past concerns as to where one sets the membership fee are now moot - we can 
afford to waive the fee for those who contribute time. I'm not really keen on 
the idea of selling any memberships, but it would be good if we could award 
membership to some of the professors, museum curators, librarians, archivists 
and others who help our mission without necessarily editing much themselves.

Past concerns about privacy are easier to resolve as we now have a structure of 
chapters and they include ones in countries with very strict privacy laws. So 
we can have a federal membership system with chapters holding the membership 
details in specific countries, and anyone suing the WMF to get the membership 
details of someone who'd blocked them for spamming would then find that all the 
WMF knew was someone's username - membership details would be held by an 
independent legal entity in a country with strict privacy laws.

A Membership based system would give more protection for community elected 
trustees.

A membership based organisation would formally be a global not for profit at 
the intersection of education, culture, free knowledge and open licensing; not 
a Silicon Valley tech entity.

A membership based organisation would have better defences against being 
"commercialised".

Regards

Jonathan/WereSpielChequers


>> Dear friends,
>> 
>> Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
>> Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization.  The
>> revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
>> recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have been
>> a surprise to many of us, and almost ten years after membership was
>> eliminated, we see strongly suggestive "directly elected" language still
>> being fixed on the Foundation's own Board elections page.[1]
>> 
>> It turns out that this history is colorful, the Foundation was a membership
>> organization from 2003-2006 and Board seats were indeed, originally,
>> intended to be directly elected by member-Wikimedians.  It seems that the
>> membership issue was never quite resolved.  I've put some of my notes on
>> metawiki, please forward to any wiki historians who might be interested in
>> throwing their weight on a shovel.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy
>> 
>> As a current WMF staff member, and having received a formal scolding two
>> weeks ago for expressing my professional and personal opinions on this
>> list--that a hierarchical corporate structure is completely inappropriate
>> and ineffectual for running the Foundation--I don't feel safe
>> editorializing about what membership could mean for the future of the
>> Wikimedia movement.  But I would be thrilled to see this discussion take
>> place, and to contribute however I am able.
>> 
>> A note to fellow staff: Anything you can say about this history is most
>> likely protected speech under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, since we're asking
>> whether state and federal laws were violated.
>> 
>> In solidarity,
>> Adam Wight
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>> 
>> [1]
>> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Bangladesh has a new Executive Committee

[Tanvir Rahman]

Disclaimer: it is not unfortunate to have the minutes in Bangla. The word
was slightly misplaced. Anyway, it is unfortunate not to have the English
version for the global community to read and understand. I hope you got the
the right meaning before reading this disclaimer. :-)

T.
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Bangladesh has a new Executive Committee

[Tanvir Rahman]

Dear all,

It is my pleasure to inform you that the Wikimedia Bangladesh has a new
Executive Committee (aka Board) to the serve the chapter for the term
2016-2018.

27 of a total 43 regular members and 1 of 2 supporting members were present
in the General Meeting on January 15, 2016 which took place early before
the inauguration of Wikipedia's 15th birthday party. The new committee was
elected by the vote of regular members who were present at the general
meeting in person.

Minutes of the General Meeting can be found here
.
Unfortunately it is in Bangla, and English version is not available yet.

The following members were elected to serve the Executive Committee.

1. Munir Hasan 
2. Tanvir Rahman 
3. Tanweer Morshed 
4. Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive 
5. Nahid Sultan 
6. Shabab Mustafa 
7. A. K. Al Mohiuddin 
8. Masum-Al-Hasan Rocky

9. Ali Haidar Khan 

We have not elected the new office bearers (president, secretary, and
treasurer) yet. According to our bylaws they get elected by the vote of EC
members internally. It may take a week or two more. Once they are elected,
we would be happy to inform the community with an update.

Sincerely,

Tanvir Rahman
Secretary
Wikimedia Bangladesh
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

[Anders Wennersten]

I agree that the Board need to be strengthened in competence related to 
cultural and personnel issues. I am also of the opinion that much of the 
discussion related to this issue is made in too harsh tone, and I am not 
fond of having an Rfc on the issue, intelligent dialogue is preferred to 
black and white voting.


This said I must admit I am utterly disappointed in this comment. The 
culture of Wikipedia is to be straightforward and fact oriented, and 
myself I am allergic to "corporate bullsh-t"/fluff. And then to find a 
comment full of this is not what I want to see And to get it from one 
who should be in the Board helping with our internal culture, makes me 
wonder if it possible to help with our problem in our culture with not 
at all understanding it?


I agree with other on the list that our movement will be worse off with 
Arnnon Geshuri in the Board.


Anders






Den 2016-01-26 kl. 20:07, skrev Arnnon Geshuri:

It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from
representative members of the community.  My first reaction was how amazing
the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest
dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an
overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another
fifteen years and beyond.   Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy
of the community is truly inspirational.  Although I would have preferred
the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I
deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying
around convictions, and open disagreement.


Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely.
That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are
mitigating considerations.  As a general matter, I will say that,
throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies
as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully
and consistently.  I have done so realizing company policies and practices
evolve over time as circumstances change.



As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a
running theme within the online conversations related to trust.  Comments
were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board
and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member.  Wanting
to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks
speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in
the community.  I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate
those who have been generous with their time.  Given the story line that
has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from
my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board
members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their
trust in me.  I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the
important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors,
contributors, and users.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with
thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is
right.  I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit
careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a
Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.  I
passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the
community and even the most energetic community members come from a place
of good intent.  And as we all become closer and transition to debating the
issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from
the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best
intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.

Regards,
Arnnon
___
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, 




___
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,